|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 21, 2020 4:34:19 GMT
It's also the case, as Huilluame has pointed out, genuinely useless characters are much less likely than they were in the original.
Military Ability of 1 basically screwed you entirely without other career paths.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 21, 2020 4:52:20 GMT
Military Ability of 1 basically screwed you entirely without other career paths. Well. I would remember Huillaume had MA 1 when he reached Paris, and even choosing the Military career he has not done so bad... But he spent two month raising his MA, and over 6 in the front as "preparation for play" so to say, so I'm now really starting to play Paris life (although some tour at the front will probably be taken). Looking retrospectively, with original rules he'd probably have now the same (or approximate) MA, as he has obtained better results than his immediate superior more often that not (mostly because his immediate superiors were unsuited for the post)
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 21, 2020 11:48:19 GMT
Well, actually, that's exactly what the 'rises on 5/6' option does. Apart from where MA is concerned (at least at present) up until 7 it's possible to raise skill by one point (provided you have the cash, of course) by 4 or 6 weeks of study. From 7 onwards, with raises only on 5/6 dice rolls we're looking at an average of 12 Skill Checks (at what I expect will be a _maximum_ of one per month) to raise a skill by one point.
In other words, a minimum of 48 weeks to raise a skill by one point. That's a (minimum of) 8 times harder for medical and legal skills, and 12 times harder for the other skills. It's probably going to be worse than this for most professions. As has been pointed out, actors sticking with their companies will only get 4 skill checks a year (144 weeks per skill point rise) and even working outside too it's difficult to envision them getting more than 6 skill checks per year (96 weeks per skill point).
Isn't that difficult enough ?
Having skill rises only on skill checks where a 6 is rolled (which, as has been pointed out, is what the 'increase on a 5 or 6 and decrease on a 1' equates to as well once you get past the annoyance factor) makes things twice as difficult - we're looking at an average of 24 Skill Checks to raise a skill by one point. That means that all the times mentioned above will be doubled, the result being that skill rises above 7 cease to be worth considering as a serious objective really.
I'm afraid I've not crunched the numbers where your option is concerned, Huillaume, (maybe Yves will get around to it eventually?) but at first glance it looks as though it also falls into the 'skill rises above 7 effectively impossible' category.
I did suggest, when the new skills were introduced, that Sam might like to give players the figures and allow them to assign them to the new skills themselves so as to 'mould' the characters towards how their players envisaged them but, like you, he prefers 'the idea of trying to make the best of what you have.' I'm ambivalent really. On the one hand I do like shaping characters according to the skills they are given. On the other, it might be nice to be able rearrange key skills (without adding penalties in other areas for the privilege). If I wanted to run a musician, for example, rather than a soldier, it would be nice to be able to switch around MA 6 and Music 1 before introducing him to Paris.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 21, 2020 13:05:49 GMT
If there's a groundswell of opinion for point buy I will look at it, but "deal the hand you're dealt" does feel more in the spirit of En Garde! to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 21, 2020 13:17:04 GMT
One thing I did consider but abandoned is separate ability modifers for each social class to differntiate them more. Is that something people would like revisited?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 21, 2020 13:18:58 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. Since the game started we've had two genuinely useless characters. One was before the extra abilities were added. And the other was Jason who seems to have annoyed a witch on a highway at some point.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 22, 2020 15:06:14 GMT
Now that the skills improvement is discused in anothr trhead, would be unpolite to bump this question?
And now some questions (I didn' find in the rules): - Can Pistol be trained?
- If so, how?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 22, 2020 15:07:48 GMT
Pistol can't currently be trained.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 23, 2020 12:16:44 GMT
One thing I did consider but abandoned is separate ability modifers for each social class to differntiate them more. Is that something people would like revisited? Do you mean that a peasant would be less likely to be a skilled dancer or swordsman, for example, whilst a nob would likely be less rugged? That would tend to make the initial roll for class crucial in opening doors - a move further into "play the hand you are dealt" territory. I am not sure the current range of abilities is well-suited to that approach, though. For example, I would expect a noble to have a firm grasp of etiquette, yet acting is more likely a profession of commoners; merchants' sons may be expected to follow them into trade, but would this background really make them better playwrights? We would perhaps need more career-specific abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 23, 2020 14:08:36 GMT
I'm afraid I've not crunched the numbers where your option is concerned, Huillaume, (maybe Yves will get around to it eventually?) but at first glance it looks as though it also falls into the 'skill rises above 7 effectively impossible' category. (Corrected numbers - I forgot a MAX in my formula, so had negative chances to start with at high abilities. They increase steadily, as Huillaume realised.) I calculated the expected number of times you would have to qualify for a possible ability uplift before achieving one: Current Ability | Expectation | 1 | 1.17
| 2 | 1.39
| 3 | 1.69
| 4 | 2.13
| 5 | 2.77
| 6 | 3.77
| 7 | 4.77 | 8 | 5.77 | 9 | 6.77 |
If qualification was rolling a 5 or 6 on a skill check, expected on average once in every three skill checks, University would still be the fastest route to advancement, though that ignores possible earnings. A playwright with admin 4 would expect to gain a level by writing six to seven plays - compared to twelve with the "+0.25 on 5 or 6" rule. Once at level 7, he would expect to write fourteen plays to gain a level. Rising from 9 to 10 would be slightly better than to "+0.25 on 6 only". If qualification was a skill check result of 1 or 2, we would have a strange, snaking curve that favoured ability 5: Current Ability | Expected Skill Checks | 3 | 10.17 | 4 | 12.78 | 5 | 8.32 | 6 | 11.32 | 7 | 9.55 | 8 | 11.55 | 9 | 10.16 |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 23, 2020 14:28:40 GMT
Do you mean that a peasant would be less likely to be a skilled dancer or swordsman, for example, whilst a nob would likely be less rugged? That'd be the kind of thing; we already have it in a very limited way. The peasant bonus and noble penalty to physical stats. My primary concern is that it goes too far in this direction. At the moment, most characters have several career options to choose from. To an extent, that's something where playability has to trump realism. Go too far down that route and you end up with separate "folk dance" and "formal dance" abilities. Much as Liminal deviates from core rules, that strikes me as too much of a change!
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 23, 2020 14:55:15 GMT
I'm afraid I've not crunched the numbers where your option is concerned, Huillaume, (maybe Yves will get around to it eventually?) but at first glance it looks as though it also falls into the 'skill rises above 7 effectively impossible' category. I would not say impossible, but it would take time (after all, level 7 means someone exceptional, as (s)he cannot botch it)... In fact, the number of average possibilities to raise them is just one more per skill level over 6, as each failed roll adds 1 to the next one (cummulative), and after you have a +1, the result on this is the same as if you had one less ability. Of course, this means if you have a possibility to increase your ability each 3 trows, this additional time from higher skills means 3 more trows (as the other two will not give you the check). OTOH, if each time a skill is increased a full point is gained, it may even make easier to effectively raising your skill, at least at low and medium levels
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 23, 2020 16:02:54 GMT
Personally, I don't like the idea of grinding out advancement, by pumping out superficially successful works, living off the proceeds and milking every minor accolade. Are Stock, Aitken, and Waterman or Barbara Cartland masters of their art? All of the options in the poll seems to be a variation of that theme.
I prefer the idea of achieving stardom (a whole level) through some lovingly-crafted masterpiece, after a few months of incredible personal sacrifice (similar to the title roll for artists), or complete fluke (a small chance for every triumphant success; maybe an even tinier possibility for very well done).
The former would suit those who do not like to leave such matters to chance. They would know what was required (influence, cash, time, etc.), and could weigh up the costs against the benefits. They may decide it is worthwhile to drop a level or two on the greasy pole, while closeted away in an ivory tower, or dingy garret, or call in favours to lessen the impact (such as toadying opportunities to make very productive use of every week away from the oeuvre, or an appreciative audience on opening night). Of course, there would likely still be ways they could be thwarted, especially if other characters made it their business to prevent success.
The latter would, very occasionally, provide a welcome fillip for the less dedicated. Why shouldn't there be an element of pure luck?
Another thing that struck me when researching the arts: how do these characters die? Soldiers face death every time they practise their art. Is there no chance of being lynched by an angry mob for offending their sensibilities, being struck by falling scenery, or run through by a drunken poet in an argument over metre or rhyme?
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 23, 2020 18:10:57 GMT
Yes, but as you say, if skill improvement is the aim, up until a skill rating of 7 by far the most effective means is by putting time into University or an Academy. It's only from 7 upwards that the advancement by skill method really matters, and with Huillaume on a 5 or 6, if I've calculate correctly, the progression from 7 onwards would be
7 to 8 = 16.2 skill rolls per point rise (already more than the 12 for a die roll of 5/6 on its own) 8 to 9 = 24.63 (slightly worse than 0.25 rises on a roll of 6 only) 9 to 10 = 39.93 (much worse than 0.25 rises on a roll of 6 only)
So, as I originally said, also falls into the 'skill rises above 7 effectively impossible' category.
Where the poll is concerned, for the reasons mentioned above, rises from skill checks don't really matter until we're looking at skill level 7 onwards. So there's no real difference between '0.25 on a roll of "6" ' and ' From 7-10 it improves on a roll of "6" ' . Both require 24 Skill checks to raise an ability over 7 - in contrast to the 12 Skill Checks needed by the 'Abilities improve by 0.25 on a roll of "5" or "6" ' option.
In the poll at the moment 'From 7-10 it improves on a roll of "6" ' is leading 'Abilities improve by 0.25 on a roll of "5" or "6" ' by a nose.
Hopefully those who have yet to vote will take the view that that introducing all these great new skills and careers - but then ensuring that no PC can ever become particularly good at any of them - maybe isn't such a hot idea...
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 23, 2020 18:15:35 GMT
I had a mistake in my calculation. I checked again when I saw Huillaume's response about increasing steadily, and saw he was right. Corrected numbers above. It is not as tough at high levels as I thought, but still harder from ability 7 onwards than "5/6 at all levels". A recipe for homogenization, in my cookbook, as above-average but not prodigious characters will likely study to improve, then stay at 7. That suits neither my preferred, "play the hand fate dealt you", approach (I could still do it, of course, but would likely see my natural advantages over my rivals disappear), nor the "you can be anything you want to be" alternative.
|
|