|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 20, 2020 12:10:54 GMT
For someone who is mixing paint, rather than mixing it with the enemy, that's ridiculous: more than almost every soldier up to the rank of captain.
I would be happy to see "Apprentice" introduced as an earlier step, requiring only an above-average ability, with a small monthly retainer. I would say SL x 2 or 3 is consistent with a private's pay. I would suggest having to apply for an apprenticeship, possibly similar to seeking an NPC patron (I have not looked at the rules on patronage); I don't think a character should be able simply to declare himself an apprentice and start claiming support.
I agree that doctors and lawyers seem not to be well paid, but do they not charge fees on top of that if they actually do any work?
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 20, 2020 13:47:23 GMT
That's why I suggested the monthly stipend of (SL x 3) livres instead.
OK, that fits in well with having to apply to join regiments etc. That's what it should be modelled on though - the patronage rules are a lot more complex than a simple die roll against SL.
Well, actors effectively have to apply for apprenticeships already - by seeking admission to one of the Companies of Players.
I believe that this is a pre-monthly action and that all three may be approached in the same month, so lets say that in any given month there are also three artists/musicians/playwrights seeking apprentices and offering monthly stipends of 3, 2 and 1 x SL respectively. In order to be taken on as an apprentice requires a die roll of (relevant skill level) or less on 1D6. Those needing the cash can, if failing to get taken on by the most generous, wait until the following month and try again. Those not needing the cash can carry on trying until they secure an apprenticeship offering lower pay.
Why add another level to the artist careers table when we only have to amend the Neophyte line?
Rank (Musician / Min SL SP/ Month Pay / Month Inf. Prerequisites Additional Playwright / Artist) Info for Playwrights / Actors
Neophyte 2 2 (3,2 or 1) x SL 1 4+ in relevant Actors become / Apprentice skill PLUS Apprentices upon Joining a Theatre Current Skill Company Level or Less on 1D6 to secure Apprenticeship
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 20, 2020 15:19:05 GMT
That's a lot easier than for an actor to join a company of players, which you suggested as a prerequisite for an actor. It's a shoo-in for a character with ability 6, and ability 4 is unlikely (1 in 27) to be rejected by all three.
I'd suggest making it harder to get the better apprenticeships. Say, reduce the target throw by 2 for 3 x SL, by 1 for 2 x SL, and no modifier for 1 x SL. All would still be open to ability 4.
Ability 4 is required here for a 1/6 chance of joining the least prestigious company; only ability 6 can be a King's Player.
Perhaps an apprentice actor would not be a fully-fledged member of a company, though he would most likely be attached to one of them as a dogsbody until earning his spurs. The companies could pay different amounts, as you suggested for the masters in other crafts.
I thought to retain "Neophyte", with current benefits, for those who qualified by producing a successful work. I don't think an apprentice should gain influence. I see that role as equivalent to a common soldier. Even officers do not have influence unless they hold an appointment, so why give it so easily to artists? The lowest military rank with influence is a subaltern serving as aide to a Brigadier-General, which is a lot harder to attain, unless appointed by a PC.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 20, 2020 17:38:07 GMT
Ok, to do the SCR first, I've put together options for a poll. Let me know if I've missed anything. I've only really gone with what people have suggested (so there isn't an option for "improve on 6, decrease on a 1") but can add more as necessary. As far as I can tell everyone thinks the current system is broken.
Abilities improve on a 5 or 6.
Abilities improve on a 6 only.
Abilities increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1.
Abilities increase on a 5 or 6 up to level 7 and increase on a 6 after that.
Hullaume's suggestion (which I'll post in full in the poll thread)
Anything I've missed? I'll put the poll up tomrorow.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 20, 2020 18:45:21 GMT
Well, getting back to the military comparison, the lower regiments are a shoo-in for anyone of SL 6+. Accident of birth is going to affect PCs in many ways, so why shouldn't this be one of them? I see what you're getting at here, but is it worth the extra complication ? I must admit that I'd overlooked the "+(Etiquette Skill minus 6)" wrinkle when attempting to join acting companies - I wouldn't plan on having a character of mine attempt to join one until he or she was (relevant skill) 6+ anyway But why is it only Etiquette, when both music and dancing skills will be required for some productions? To level the playing where other apprenticeships are concerned, maybe we should replace "+(Etiquette Skill minus 6)" with "If Etiquette, Music or Dance are 7+ then +1 for each 7+" ? I suppose we could go with the Archduke's men only paying apprentices 1 x SL while the Duke's and King's Men paid 2 and 3 x SL respectively though. I see your point regards influence and professional ranks - I raised the point with Sam, thinking that this detailed the level of favours needed to influence the professionals themselves. Maybe those below Practitioner level should all be reduced by one, giving artistic neophytes / apprentices no influence as you suggest. (Apprentice Doctors and Lawyers might still pick up some minor favours thanks to what they learn about the practice clients). Regards the forthcoming poll, as detailed above, any '6 Only' options (and that's effectively what the 'Abilities increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1' option is too), requiring 24 SCR Rolls to increase an ability by a single skill point, is effectively cutting off all possibility of skill improvements from that point on... The 'Abilities increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1' option is particularly pernicious and far worse than the current system in every way. At least now once you get to a skill level of 7 you don't have to worry about losing skill any more... I'd like to request that this option is dropped before the poll appears - it would degrade the Liminal playing experience utterly.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 20, 2020 19:08:34 GMT
I get what you mean about safety from level 7, but the long-term average would be the same as the 6-only increase: you would expect to increase by 0.25 (is that the uplift?) every six rolls - two increases and one decrease. A greater variance, which may suit the reckless gamblers amongst us.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 20, 2020 20:20:33 GMT
The 'Abilities increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1' option is particularly pernicious and far worse than the current system in every way. At least now once you get to a skill level of 7 you don't have to worry about losing skill any more... I'd like to request that this option is dropped before the poll appears - it would degrade the Liminal playing experience utterly. My view there is that it's best to give people the option and if people hate it, it won't get any votes. (That's happened with poll options before). That said, I would be willing to set this up as a ranked choice poll instead, which would give you the option of giving it a much more negative preference than a simple "vote for multiple options" poll would allow. It would me setting up a poll off site and linking to it. How does that sound to people? I'm something of a politics geek so it's really hard for me to gauge how much more complicated people would find that kind of poll.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 20, 2020 20:45:35 GMT
I love transferable votes, if that's what you mean - much better than first past the post. Mind, when I told people at work I was in favour in the referendum around 10 years ago, someone said that was reason enough for him to vote against!
|
|
|
Post by Father William Souris on Mar 20, 2020 20:50:28 GMT
I love transferable votes, if that's what you mean - much better than first past the post. Mind, when I told people at work I was in favour in the referendum around 10 years ago, someone said that was reason enough for him to vote against! Transferable votes for this sort of thing are fine, not really good for real world Democracy though if it relies on parties which are pretty much anti-democratic by design.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 20, 2020 20:55:04 GMT
I love transferable votes, if that's what you mean - much better than first past the post. Mind, when I told people at work I was in favour in the referendum around 10 years ago, someone said that was reason enough for him to vote against! It's similar to STV, but even more proportional. Essentially, everyone rates the options in order of preference. As the ones with the least first preference votes drop out, their votes are redistributed to the remaining options. Two main effects. It makes the possiblity of getting an option that a significant minority hates much less likely. It means that the winning option will be the one that also gets a lot of second and third preference votes.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 20, 2020 21:17:53 GMT
Note that will only be of relevance to electoral system wonks (I suggest everyone else just ignores this post entirely!): Thinking of going for the Condorcet method if we go for this. Remarkably complicated in terms of calculations but very straightfoward from a voter perspective. Also has the advantage of making tactical voting a lot less appealing which is probably good in a group of gamers who like prodding at rules.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 20, 2020 21:21:02 GMT
I get what you mean about safety from level 7, but the long-term average would be the same as the 6-only increase: you would expect to increase by 0.25 (is that the uplift?) every six rolls - two increases and one decrease. A greater variance, which may suit the reckless gamblers amongst us. Yes, I know. That's what I said above if you look: increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1 is the same as increase on 6 only. But once again can I point out that it means 24 SCR checks to get a 1 point rise. How many SCRs is an actor going to get in a year ? Only 4 if he sticks with his Theatre Company, which means that starting at Skill 7 requires Six Game Years before they see a skill rise to 8. What are the chances of the game even lasting that long??? The same goes with writing plays if no checks are made until they are performed. As I've repeatedly said, if we go for the 0.25 skill rise occurring only on a 6 we can forget about any skills ever getting to 8. It's not something we'll ever see (except, perhaps, MA - not really checked to see how that works in Liminal). Doctors and Lawyers starting at Skill 7 will, on average, get 6 SCR rolls per game year, meaning that it will take them four game years to gain a skill point. (The number of SCR rolls they get will be considerably less if their skill is less than 7). Artists and Musicians will be slightly better placed but, even there, by the time they've been through 24 SCR checks (probably no more than 1 per month, so were looking at a minimum of 2 game years) and gained a skill point I suspect they may have forgotten what they wanted it for in the first place.... Skill Rises on 6 only = Kiss Skill Rises Good-Bye
I can't be clearer than that. Well, yeah. No-one ever votes against their own best interests in referendums do they...? To be honest, I nearly didn't put the 5/6 idea forward - despite it being a simple, elegant and equitable solution - precisely because I feared you might come up with the 'and decrease on a 1' nerf as an extension (which is lot worse than what we have now). Sorry, but I don't see the point in that. Huillaume's suggestions aside (which seem more concerned with expertise etc anyway than they are with the new skills) there is only one of the above options which isn't a lot worse than what we have at present: Abilities improve on a 5 or 6
I can see no useful purpose in my voting for anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 20, 2020 22:34:21 GMT
Well, yeah. No-one ever votes against their own best interests in referendums do they...?[/q] I think there are some sigificant differences (both in terms of the gravity and the level of information needed) between "leave a political and economic union" and "how would you prefer this to be handled in a game you play". It's not my preferred option either. But I am generally in favour of player chioce. I can also add "SCR equal or less" which is the old system with progression made easier. Hopefully that gives you at least two options. I hear that this is binary for you. Unfortunately, I can only do so much to cater to that without ignoring the views of other players. There's only really three other possibilities here. I make all decisions autocratically without polls. That would work until players get a decision they hate. (In this case, it would get you one of your equally bad options). I let decisions be made by the most vocal players. Great for them, sucks to be anyone else. I let all players have an individual veto over rules changes and only go for consensus. Easily the best of the alternatives, but as this discussion shows it would likely lead to no changes but the most trivial. So I'm afraid the poll is happening.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 21, 2020 3:04:15 GMT
Ok, to do the SCR first, I've put together options for a poll. Let me know if I've missed anything. I've only really gone with what people have suggested (so there isn't an option for "improve on 6, decrease on a 1") but can add more as necessary. As far as I can tell everyone thinks the current system is broken. (...) Hullaume's suggestion (which I'll post in full in the poll thread) Just point that my own option is not contradictory with any of the others. even more,it needs another option, as it just makes this increase speeder (at full point) but less sure (you need a roll). Some thoughts to share: Original game has only two abilities, expertise and MA, and in both cases they are the higher you have it the easier to increase. This may even be narrative or reality wise, as it asumes that initial ability means also potential. OTOH, it may be not so game wise, as any character that begins with low abilities is probably doomed to keep (and suffer) them (and in the case of expertise, this may make him the favorite target for duels, making his life quite miserable). Others, me among them, prefer to make abilities' increase based on the higher the harder principle, and that's why I suggested it. While this might not be realistic (as not everyone has potential in a n specific field), it helps unlucky CharGern. OTOH, having more abilities in this game, the probability of having at least one field (and career) where you have potential is quite higher...
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 21, 2020 4:13:26 GMT
I understand the problem of unlucky characters (in the extreme, 1 for every ability). I remember, when creating characters to play D&D at school, the DM did not roll randomly: we were given a spread of attribute scores (each supposedly 3d6), and could choose how to allocate them. So, if we really wanted to be a cleric, we would choose a good score for wisdom, but that meant we had to be bad at something else. If I remember right, we were allowed to boost an attribute at the cost of others, something like adding one to our desired specialty but having to drop two elsewhere. In future, that could be a way to give players more of what they want up front, without having to spend months training a lacklustre character to be something they were not born for.
Personally, I like the idea of trying to make the best of what you have, rather than wanting to be perfect in some way, with no chance of failure. Even if the rational conclusion in some cases is to send a seemingly-doomed character to the front immediately in a desperate attempt to beat the odds. I love calculating probabilities, and looking to maximise my expected outcome, but that does not mean I want zero chance of totally screwing up. No skill rises in the average lifetime, unless you work insanely hard and are amazingly lucky, sounds just fine to me. I don't expect that to come out top in a player poll, but I don't see why it shouldn't be an option.
|
|