|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Apr 30, 2020 1:50:09 GMT
People who want more character differentation may like this idea. Should we have different stats depending on backgrounds?
PEASANT STR +2, CON+2 , EXP -1, Etiquette-2, Dancing +1, Music+1, Admin +1
MERCHANT STR +1, CON+1, EXP-1, Etiquette -1, Dancing -1, Admin +3, Artistic -1, Medical +1, Legal+2
GENTLEMAN EXP +1, Etiquette +1, Dancing +1, Music +2, Admin +2, Artistic +1, Medical +1, Legal +1
NOBLE STR -1, CON -1, EXP +2, Etiquette +2, Dancing +2, Music +1, Admin -2, Artistic +1, Medical -1, Legal -1, Pistol +1
Minimum 1 in all cases, however it would now be possible to start with abilities over 6 if you're vey lucky.
If people like this it's easy enough to modifer characters for the next turn.
Also, there's a similar idea for mistresses but thought it best to see how people feel about the general concept first.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Apr 30, 2020 8:36:27 GMT
I am generally in favour of skewing the odds for different classes. I feel the suggested mods are overly generous: more positives than negatives, which introduces a bias in favour of higher abilities. And unevenly distributed. - Peasant +4
- Merchant +4
- Gentleman +10 (WTF?)
- Noble +3
Peasants could be malnourished and sickly, but I suppose those poor examples of humanity would never reach Paris. Similarly, I would expect a noble to be educated in at least the rudiments of business, but perhaps the sons we meet are generally those who rejected the course their fathers had in mind, and wasted their formative years. I think you'd need a cap at 7, else it is not what I would consider very lucky for a merchant to exceed 6 for admin (range 4-9, with an average of 6.5). Of course, caps and collars mess up the averages, so it is harder to work out what's fair. I suggest a more complex algorithm to change the distribution of abilities for each class, within the usual 1-6 range, without making the extremes impossible for anyone. The normal distribution springs immediately to mind, though it is symmetrical around the mean, not skewed to one end or the other. I think the Poisson is the shape I am looking for; I think it is less appropriate in the real world for natural characteristics, but could work here. If you're interested, I am sure someone will remember, or I can Google to stir old memories. Excel can handle some such functions, or they can be approximated in some way, such as rolling multiple dice and removing outliers or taking an average (median, mode, or mean).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Apr 30, 2020 10:14:52 GMT
I agree they're too generous, definitely a work in progress.
I would say that they don't necessarily need to balance completely. (And it's worth remembering that STR/CON mods are more valuable than skill mods, because of how much harder they are to raise).
They also still can be; stats of 5. I think it's likely that a very weak peasant is still less low than a very weak noble.
In terms of narrative logic (not sure on historical accuracy) nobles considering trade low class is pretty much a trope. (Also one reflected in the merchant rules where nobles lose SP for becoming shopkeepers!)
A cap of 7 seems fair.
I'll work on some less ott mods but I'm definitely interested in seeing that.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Apr 30, 2020 10:46:53 GMT
But admin applies also to estate management, which would be valuable to noble families.
Maybe it's time to break out the F.A.T.A.L. rule book.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Apr 30, 2020 12:15:53 GMT
Whatever do you think Land Agents are for, Dear Boy ?
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 12:28:29 GMT
MY take: I'm not against modifiers due to background social class, but, for those going with 1d6, modifiers ofer +/-1 seem to me too high. For DMs for STR and CON, I understand peasants used to be stronger (basically performing hard work) than nobles, but they also use to have worse feeding and medical care, so the CON DMs shouls be reflective. In game terms, those modifiers give a peasant 30 more endurance than to a noble, makin gthem quite likely to win any duel against a noble (as, unless at first blood, where luck and outguessing is the most important factor, END and STR are far more decisive than expertise in duels). for skills, I agree with Yves that nobles should not be penalized in Admin, as it's the skill used to manage their states. As per applying those DMs to existing characters, see that this may quite changea already established characters. If Huillaume suddenly has his dancing and etiquette increased by 2, and his AA by 1, he will have a huge advantage, as he's acting to now, while if he has his admin reduced by 2, the management of his estate (if he can redeem it) will be quite more difficult... Another detail: this is contradictory with:
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Apr 30, 2020 13:35:35 GMT
I suggest a more complex algorithm to change the distribution of abilities for each class, within the usual 1-6 range, without making the extremes impossible for anyone. The normal distribution springs immediately to mind, though it is symmetrical around the mean, not skewed to one end or the other. I think the Poisson is the shape I am looking for; I think it is less appropriate in the real world for natural characteristics, but could work here. If you're interested, I am sure someone will remember, or I can Google to stir old memories. Excel can handle some such functions, or they can be approximated in some way, such as rolling multiple dice and removing outliers or taking an average (median, mode, or mean). If we were creating a model for creating an entire population of random characters (much as I am doing for the 300K residents of 17th century Paris for a tabletop game) I would agree with a standard distribution. But in RPGs, PCs are supposed to be exceptional individuals, so breaking out of a standard distribution model seems right. Additionally, a straight D6 versus a Round(3d6/3) will create greater variation between characters making for a more interesting game. For the math geeks in the forum rounding the results of a 3D6/3 creates the following distribution Result Population1 1.9%2 14.3% 3 33.8%4 33.8% 5 14.3% 6 1.9% This firmly places results of 3 and 4 (67.6%) firmly within one standard deviation (68.3%) from the mean. Results of 2 and 5 are a little higher than a normal distribution would suggest but the total population for 2-5 (96.2%) is still close to normal for two standard deviations from the mean (95.4%)
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 13:54:19 GMT
I suggest a more complex algorithm to change the distribution of abilities for each class, within the usual 1-6 range, without making the extremes impossible for anyone. The normal distribution springs immediately to mind, though it is symmetrical around the mean, not skewed to one end or the other. I think the Poisson is the shape I am looking for; I think it is less appropriate in the real world for natural characteristics, but could work here. If you're interested, I am sure someone will remember, or I can Google to stir old memories. Excel can handle some such functions, or they can be approximated in some way, such as rolling multiple dice and removing outliers or taking an average (median, mode, or mean). If we were creating a model for creating an entire population of random characters (much as I am doing for the 300K residents of 17th century Paris for a tabletop game) I would agree with a standard distribution. But in RPGs, PCs are supposed to be exceptional individuals, so breaking out of a standard distribution model seems right. Additionally, a straight D6 versus a Round(3d6/3) will create greater variation between characters making for a more interesting game. For the math geeks in the forum rounding the results of a 3D6/3 creates the following distribution Result Population1 1.9%2 14.3% 3 33.8%4 33.8% 5 14.3% 6 1.9% This firmly places results of 3 and 4 (67.6%) firmly within one standard deviation (68.3%) from the mean. Results of 2 and 5 are a little higher than a normal distribution would suggest but the total population for 2-5 (96.2%) is still close to normal for two standard deviations from the mean (95.4%) If we'd want more average results, but without nearly ruling out extreme ones, I'd go for 3d6 discarding the highest and the lowest one... If you want to give some advantage to certain backgrounds (e.g. etiquette for nobles), just then roll 2d6 and choose the higher, and if you want to penalize it (e.g. etiquette for peasants), roll 2d6 and choose the lower... Likewise, for those with 3d6 (STR, CON and EXP), if we want more averaged Characters, we can toll 5d6, again discarding higher and lowre, or 4d6 discarding the higher or the lower according if we wish to advantage or penalize... This system is simple, quick, and the I guess will give the advantages or penalties wanted without r uling out some strange results (as a noble with etiquette 1, or a peasant with etiquette 6). Even so, for some skills (mostly AA and Music), where I think people may be gifted or disastrous due to true random factors (personally I'm quite disastrous in both), the straight 1d6 might serve.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Apr 30, 2020 14:07:28 GMT
I expanded upon the mean of three dice to skew the results, by eliminating either the lowest or highest roll. For example, taking the average of the best two rolls (rounded up) produces an average of 4.5 (like a +1 modifier) with a distribution weighted towards better results, but still a chance of 1: Result | Probability | 1 | 0.5% | 2 | 4.6% | 3 | 14.4% | 4 | 28.2% | 5 | 32.4% | 6 | 19.9% |
If we maintain the cap at 6, this kind of modification reduces diversity within each social class; allowing a 7 reduces the bunching. Most of the algorithms I tried pretty much eliminated 1s and 2s as increasing modifiers were applied. Perhaps that is what we want. Differentiating more between classes does not necessarily increase diversity. We could find, for example, that noble characters are highly unlikely to become playwrights, but could dominate the acting scene as well as the dance floor, whilst sons of merchants are highly likely to follow them into the trade, or write plays. If we get the modifiers right, this could increase realism, but with multipurpose attributes may not always work that way.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Apr 30, 2020 14:13:02 GMT
The median of three rolls does not affect the mean (still 3.5): Result | Probability | 1 | 7.4% | 2 | 18.5% | 3 | 24.1% | 4 | 24.1% | 5 | 18.5% | 6 | 7.4% |
Higher of two rolls increases the mean to 4.5, and makes a 6 almost twice as likely: Result | Probability | 1 | 2.8% | 2 | 8.3% | 3 | 13.9% | 4 | 19.4% | 5 | 25.0% | 6 | 30.6% |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 14:25:16 GMT
The median of three rolls does not affect the mean (still 3.5): But extreme results are half as likely, and that was the intent, wasn't it? Trusting your numbers (you seem better than myself with them), this gives us about half the characters being in the 3-4 range, about one third 2 or 5 and only about one sixth i nthe extremes... Higher of two rolls increases the mean to 4.5, and makes a 6 almost twice as likely: Again, I see this as the intent. Probabilty to have higher results increased without ruling out (but making quite difficult) extreme low results...
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Apr 30, 2020 14:51:55 GMT
The intent is to make extremes less likely at one end, but more likely at the other. That is why I did not want the symmetry of the normal distribution. I have learned there is a way to skew it (introduced in 1976, I think I read, and probably not yet on the curriculum when I studies statistics in the mid-80s), but I didn't understand it at first glance. Taking the better or worse of two rolls is certainly a simple way of pushing the curve one way without eliminating the other extreme entirely. I would prefer to place the mode (the most common score) below 6, but I didn't come up with anything nearly so easy to calculate. Average of the best two of three was my favourite of what I worked out so far, other than complex options which would need a spreadsheet or tables and many-sided dice. Example table for a skewed half-point positive modifier, using d10: Result | Die Roll | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4-6 | 5 | 7-8 | 6 | 9-10 |
The most common result (mode) and average (mean) is 4, with an increased chance of 5-6, and less chance of 1-3. A d20, or 2 x d10 as percentage, would allow more variation in the probability of each result. I based this on a more detailed spread I calculated in Excel using a binomial to weight the standard d6 roll. I could play around with the parameters to move the average, chances of extreme results, etc. I am sure no one cares, but just in case: =1/6+50%*(BINOM.DIST(A28-1,5,0.7,FALSE)-1/6) where A28 contains the result (1-6).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Apr 30, 2020 15:33:51 GMT
But admin applies also to estate management, which would be valuable to noble families. Maybe it's time to break out the F.A.T.A.L. rule book. I'd say that the estate would largely be managed by either land agents or the women of the family. (Admittedly, I'm basing the latter claim on Pendragon which isn't quite the right era. ) Note these stats so far are specifically for male PCs. Women would need different ones. To try and make them a bit less o/p, some revised modifers. Cap of 7, minimum of 0. PEASANT STR +1, CON+2 , EXP -2, Etiquette-3, Dancing -1, Thievery +1, Admin +1 MERCHANT Etiquette -1, Music -1, Admin +2, Legal +1 GENTLEMAN EXP +1, Thievery -2, Etiquette +1, Artistic +1, Admin -1, NOBLE STR -1, CON -1, EXP +2, Etiquette +2, Admin -2, Dancing +2, Music +1, Aristic +1, Thievery -3 Those seem more balanced. Each lower starting SL gets (slightly) better mods and I've treated STR and CON as worth two skill picks.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 15:57:09 GMT
If you want to go my way, and keeping with the modifiers you put in your OP, i'd suggest something like (abilities are given in alphabetical order, MA aside as being the only in the Original game):
| STR
| CON
| EXP
| Military
| Admin
| Artistic
| Dancing
| Etiquette
| Medical
| Music
| Legal
| Pistol
| Tieving
| Peasant | 4d6 H | 4d6 H | 4D6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 2d6 L | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 1d6 | Merchant | 4d6 H | 4d6 H | 4D6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 2d6 L | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 1d6 | 1 | Gentleman | 3d6 | 3d6 | 4d6 H | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 1d6 | 1 | Noble | 4D6 L | 4D6 L | 4d6 H | 1d6 | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 2d6 H | 1 |
Each time a roll is followed by H means discarding the lower one, If an L, discard the higher one. Notes:
- Each 1d6 may be exchanged by 3d6 (removing higher and lower), and each 3d6 by 5d6 (again removing higher and lower)
- For Medical, I gave 2d6 L to everyone (except Gentleman, as you gave them +1) to reflect the rules say they are 1d3 instead of 1d6. I didn't aply the same to legal because everyone has DMs on it2
- For thieving, I used your former rules to give 1d6 to peasants and straight 1 to everyone else.3
See that Gentleman are not penalized in any, and, curiously enough IMHO, everyone has positive DMs to music... I disagree in some of those bonus/penalties, though ,and that's how I would make it (changes in red):
| STR
| CON
| EXP
| Military
| Admin
| Artistic
| Dancing
| Etiquette
| Medical
| Music
| Legal
| Pistol
| Tieving
| Peasant | 4d6 H | 3d6 | 4D6 L | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1d6 | 2d6 L
| 2d6 L | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 1d6 | Merchant | 3d6 | 3d6 | 4D6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 1d6 | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1 | Gentleman | 3d6 | 3d6 | 4d6 H | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 L
| 1d6 | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1 | Noble | 4D6 L | 3d6 | 4d6 H | 1d6 | 1d6 | 1d6 | 2d6 H | 2d6 H | 2d6 L | 1d6 | 2d6 L
| 2d6 H | 1 |
Reasoning of the changes: - Admin, I understand only merchants should be benfited, as it's a key part of their trade, but ,as said, I don't see a reason to penalize nobles, as they must administrate their states.
- Artistic and Music, as I explained before , I guess those gifts are more or less randome, with no relation with those backgrounds. Also as said before, I'd keep those as traight 1d6 ,even if other so marked can be 3d6 (discarding higher and lower), as stated.
- Dance, I understand dancimg is for formal ones, not for folklore ones
- Etiquette, I understand merchants are neither wel ltrained (as gentlemen or nobles), but neitherpenalized (as are peasants), as they must treat with all strates of social ladder
- Legal, I tried to represent here the fact rules say 1d3 with the +1 DM given for Gentlemen and Merchants
- Medical, it reflects the 1d3 given in the tables.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 16:04:52 GMT
But admin applies also to estate management, which would be valuable to noble families. Maybe it's time to break out the F.A.T.A.L. rule book. I'd say that the estate would largely be managed by either land agents or the women of the family. (Admittedly, I'm basing the latter claim on Pendragon which isn't quite the right era. ) I disagree on this ,as land agents would not be used by most nobles.
After all, most noble PC families are assumed to stay at their states, so they can administer themselves, and at the prices they charge (minimum 20 L a month), only rich states are worth it...
|
|