|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2020 23:30:04 GMT
It's not as decisive as you think. On average, they'll get 2 points more in each stat, an extra 20 End. That's two hits from a rapier or a slash for a sabre, assuming average strength of your opponent. Peasants get 4d6L Expertise, so 2 less on average. Or, when up against nobles, your average peasant will have an expertise of 4 less, leading to average nobles having a 67% chance of hitting compared to their opponent's 50%. At this point it's pretty much the classic "skill vs brute force" duel. (Peasants would be very unwise to agree to first blood duels). Afterthoughts:According Yves numbers above, the difference is more over 3 points, giving an average of 85 ENd for a noble and 120 for a peasant. And about expertise, yes, the noble will hit 33% more often, but the peasant will produce 33% damage, so ofseting it, and the difference in endurance will really be decisive (nobles would be very unwise to agree a duel against a peasant, unless first blood, or a pistol duel...).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 1, 2020 0:19:41 GMT
According Yves numbers above, the difference is more over 3 points, giving an average of 85 ENd for a noble and 120 for a peasant. Ah, yeah, I calculated that against 3d6, my mistake. Although if the noble raises his EXP by just 1 that's a hit of 2-6 in our hypothetical duel. But I think that works with rp; in a peasant vs noble duel both will want to try and get their preferred terms. But a stronger argument is this: Even a worst case noble (improvished Chevalier) has strong advantage over a peasant. They start with three times the base SL and 4x the starting money. As such, I don't think allowing a peasant character to have a duelling advantage is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Valanon on May 1, 2020 7:02:35 GMT
As this discussion is mainly about a more roleplayable background for the PCs, why not invent another, very distinctive addition: Give every player the possibility to use one (or two) extra dice during character generation, as a personal feature? Then the PCs could have a more personalized background. For example, a peasant, who has secretly met with the daugther of a nobleman, who taught him how to dance: Dancing instead of 2D6L => 3D6L. Or the son of an impoverished nobleman, who in the past had to endure a longer time of starvation and therefore has a better consitution as the average offspring of the nobility: Con instead of 4D6L => 4D6H.
On the other hand, there may be some abilities or skills, which are below the average, due to whatever reason may be comprehensible from the background of any PC. In this way the characters have a more distinct personality and come alive more easily, as well for the player himself as for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on May 1, 2020 7:34:27 GMT
But Nobles would never go hungry, something that was always just around the corner for peasants. And contrary to some postulations above, periods of starvation have a detrimental effect on the constitution rather than a positive one. But in a period where commissions were purchased, 'public school' officers would be pretty much all there was on offer. And even as recently as the 1970s army literature was suggesting 'getting to know the men who work your father's estate' as a good preparation for attending Sandhurst (the UK's army college). ( I kid you not ). On the music side, getting particularly good requires lessons, which are beyond the means of peasants and less attractive than hunting etc. for nobles...
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on May 1, 2020 13:18:48 GMT
I actually think their diet would be better. Nobles would have a rich and expensive diet, which is less healthy than vegetables. Considering how screwed peasants are at the start I don't think this would overly favour them. That's true to a point, as most peasants were undernutrished, moslty on the protein and iron part. There's a reason the English Kings Guard were called the Beefeaters,,, I guess there was also a huge diference among the rural nobility (with most non IdF nobles would represent, that used to care their states and had some duties (including hunting, riding long distances, etc) and whose diet was quite richer thatn the peasants', but equally healthy, and the court nobility, that use to indulge in excesses quite more (hence gout is called King' disease).
As this discussion is mainly about a more roleplayable background for the PCs, why not invent another, very distinctive addition: Give every player the possibility to use one (or two) extra dice during character generation, as a personal feature? Then the PCs could have a more personalized background. For example, a peasant, who has secretly met with the daugther of a nobleman, who taught him how to dance: Dancing instead of 2D6L => 3D6L. Or the son of an impoverished nobleman, who in the past had to endure a longer time of starvation and therefore has a better consitution as the average offspring of the nobility: Con instead of 4D6L => 4D6H. On the other hand, there may be some abilities or skills, which are below the average, due to whatever reason may be comprehensible from the background of any PC. In this way the characters have a more distinct personality and come alive more easily, as well for the player himself as for all of us. That's more or less what I mean when I said: And a suggesion would be to allow players who have already a career in mind to ask for one specific skill to be given a bonus ( regardless the background) e.g. if a character wants to go to artistic career, allow him, by telling the GM beforehand, to roll 2d6 H instead of 1d6 (or 3d6 remofing higher and lower). Likewise if someone wants his character to be in the military, or a doctor or lawyerAnd here comes another suggestion I was thinking about since some time and I reserved for latter (to now let's say just a seed): what Megatraveller called Brownie Points. Those would be some "jockers" on Charabter Creation that allowed to either reroll une roll after it's known (but keeping the new one, even if worse) or to modify it beforehand. I though about this moslty for replacement characters, and those Brownie Points would be dependant on the success on the dead one (however it can be measaured), and would be mostly to compensate players who lose their characters due to bad luck (a bad battle roll, or a bad duel, or bad disease rolls) after rolepaying them well for a time, against those players that send their characters to a likely death to roll another.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on May 1, 2020 15:09:27 GMT
I though about this mostly for replacement characters, and those Brownie Points would be dependant on the success on the dead one (however it can be measured), and would be mostly to compensate players who lose their characters due to bad luck (a bad battle roll, or a bad duel, or bad disease rolls) after rolepaying them well for a time, against those players that send their characters to a likely death to roll another. How about social levels gained, or turns active (the character's lifespan, excluding NMR/floated)?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 1, 2020 16:44:47 GMT
As this discussion is mainly about a more roleplayable background for the PCs, why not invent another, very distinctive addition: Give every player the possibility to use one (or two) extra dice during character generation, as a personal feature? Then the PCs could have a more personalized background. For example, a peasant, who has secretly met with the daugther of a nobleman, who taught him how to dance: Dancing instead of 2D6L => 3D6L. Or the son of an impoverished nobleman, who in the past had to endure a longer time of starvation and therefore has a better consitution as the average offspring of the nobility: Con instead of 4D6L => 4D6H. On the other hand, there may be some abilities or skills, which are below the average, due to whatever reason may be comprehensible from the background of any PC. In this way the characters have a more distinct personality and come alive more easily, as well for the player himself as for all of us.
That would work I think, at least letting players "upgrade" a single roll for background purposes. Adds a bit of customisation without going mad with it. I think having negative stats would be pointless; people would just use one of the career skills as a dump stat.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 1, 2020 17:26:55 GMT
I actually think their diet would be better. Nobles would have a rich and expensive diet, which is less healthy than vegetables. But Nobles would never go hungry, something that was always just around the corner for peasants. And contrary to some postulations above, periods of starvation have a detrimental effect on the constitution rather than a positive one.[/quote] Yes, although I think it would come in more in terms of things like lifespan rather than short term endurance. It does also make conditions like rickets more likely, but that's not fun to have in the game way for the same reason that the STD rules don't include killers like syphhlis. Where it would be likely to come in is in childbirth and child mortality rates. (We can assume that an overly sickly peasant is unlikely to have made it to Paris in the first place). Sure, but that wasn't the same as being good at military strategy. We're past the point where nobles were professional warriors, especially lesser sons. (If we were going for historical accuracy, I'm pretty sure there should be a chance of them being made to join the church. Not sure on the French situation, but the standard British practice was first son for the estate/politics, second for the army, third for law and fourth for the church). On top of that, I think this is one of those things where playability tends to take precedence. The only regiments where noble commands are enforced are the guards, along with the army command positions. Battlefield knighthoods were way less common historically for non nobles. The chances of a peasant outstripping the son of a noble in social status would have been near nil; social stratification was a lot more fixed. etc. etc. Not necessarily. It largely requires practice (hence the large number of self taught guitarists out there). It also doesn't require formal tutelage; someone's brother teaching them to play the penny whistle works equally well. Or singing in the fields while you work (music includes singing ability). Especially as, unlike dancing, music here applies to less elite types as well as opera and orchestras.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 1, 2020 17:38:35 GMT
And here comes another suggestion I was thinking about since some time and I reserved for latter (to now let's say just a seed): what Megatraveller called Brownie Points. Those would be some "jockers" on Charabter Creation that allowed to either reroll une roll after it's known (but keeping the new one, even if worse) or to modify it beforehand. I though about this moslty for replacement characters, and those Brownie Points would be dependant on the success on the dead one (however it can be measaured), and would be mostly to compensate players who lose their characters due to bad luck (a bad battle roll, or a bad duel, or bad disease rolls) after rolepaying them well for a time, against those players that send their characters to a likely death to roll another. I'm strongly against giving replacement characters bonuses unavailable to new players. Especially considering that if you're lucky enough to get a high SL/high money character your chances of surviving are better in the first place. If it was universal, maybe. Although I think anything more than "choose a single background stat to improve" would get too far away from people playing the character they're given.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on May 1, 2020 21:36:42 GMT
And here comes another suggestion I was thinking about since some time and I reserved for latter (to now let's say just a seed): what Megatraveller called Brownie Points. Those would be some "jockers" on Charabter Creation that allowed to either reroll une roll after it's known (but keeping the new one, even if worse) or to modify it beforehand. I though about this moslty for replacement characters, and those Brownie Points would be dependant on the success on the dead one (however it can be measaured), and would be mostly to compensate players who lose their characters due to bad luck (a bad battle roll, or a bad duel, or bad disease rolls) after rolepaying them well for a time, against those players that send their characters to a likely death to roll another. I'm strongly against giving replacement characters bonuses unavailable to new players. Especially considering that if you're lucky enough to get a high SL/high money character your chances of surviving are better in the first place. If it was universal, maybe. Although I think anything more than "choose a single background stat to improve" would get too far away from people playing the character they're given. OK, I understand this point of view too.
|
|