|
Post by gaston on Jun 29, 2020 19:22:18 GMT
The opinions expressed below are my own. The purpose in writing this is to determine whether they are widely held or if I am pretty much on my own with them. EG! was designed as a game of skill, rather than a game of chance. With skilful play risks could be minimised out of existence (provided some other player didn't stick his oar in) and accurate forward planning was eminently possible. The only original area of uncertainty occurred where courting mistresses is concerned, which always failed if a natural 1 was thrown (presumably a nod to the 17th century view of women being 'frivolous and fickle creatures'). No great setback, since spurned suitors could try again the month afterwards and, as we know, 'faint heart never won fair lady.' Where Liminal is concerned, however, the best laid plans of mice and men aren't only going awry because of the actions of other players but, increasingly, due to random chance being newly introduced. Campaign outcome was the first area to suffer this. In lower ranks and regiments, death at the front has always been a distinct possibility. Those with a penchant for gambling have always been able to increase the chances of dying in order to increase the chances of campaign benefits. The more cautious (and I've always operated according the adage 'dead men get no mentions') have always been able minimise risk, up to and including securing a Death Roll of 13+ (which meant death at the front is not possible). This was an integral part of the original game rules (quote: A player who must, for example, roll a 15 for death is permitted to choose an unfavorable modification of two, making it still impossible for him to be killed, and still reap the benefits of heroism. Such are the advantages of position.) By saying that throwing a natural 12 results in a 50% chance of death, even if the modified death roll is 13+, those advantages of position have been severely eroded. How does that improve the game ? Is a player who has spent three game years carefully minimising risk, doing everything right and getting his character one step below the highest military rank, only to have him killed at the last hurdle thanks to a rules change and unlucky throw of the dice, going to find the the game a more fulfilling experience thereby? Ok, maybe having a natural 12 on the death roll requiring a roll on the 'dicing with death table' would add a little excitement and provide the character with some unexpected challenges. Going farther than this by, against all odds, having the character killed is a step too far, IMHO. Dead characters aren't able to face any further challenges at all. What it has done is take determination of the level of risk out of the hands of players and put it into whichever hand the GM throws his dice with. It reduces the skill factor and makes it more a game of chance (which, I expect, is not what most players signed up for). It's recently been pointed out that, in the latest version of the House Rules, a random chance element has been inserted into securing appointments which, like courting mistresses, now always fail on a roll of natural 1. Securing appointments usually isn't certain anyway: promised influence may fail to be ordered, it may not be possible garner enough influence in favour and enemies may throw in counter influence to purposely baulk it. But when sufficient influence is garnered to provide an overwhelming recommendation, why should the appointment giver not go with the flow? Does he get out of the wrong side of the bed that morning, or develop a sudden desire to make himself needlessly unpopular? Sorry, I just don't by it. Again, it is taking the determination regards what course the game takes out of the hands of players and putting it into the GM's dice-rolling hand - to no useful purpose that I can see. Not getting appointments thanks to the vagaries of chance is far worse than not securing a mistress on the first try of course since, rather than being set back for a month, the character is set back for a whole year. (Unless, of course, more influence is used to get the NPC appointed instead to resign - though the way things are going it won't belong before NPCs won't resign, no matter how much influence is thrown at them, if the GM throws a natural 1 either). All this is doing is severely eroding the value of influence, a vital cornerstone of the game. Effectively it means that influence has been devalued to 83% of its former value since, no matter how much influence is applied in support of an application, it's all wasted one sixth of the time. Now, 'failure on a natural 1' is even being applied to those attempting to join theatre companies. When a gifted actor who has taught at Mme Duschene's (Etiquette 7+) attempts to join the Duke's Men, supported by a glowing recommendation from one of the most influential ladies in Paris (lvl 6 favour bringing chances of success down to _minus_ 1 on 1D6), why should the NPC leader of the acting troop possibly reject him? Because the GM threw a natural 1 Sorry, I don't buy it. It makes no sense to me in game terms and makes influence pretty useless - that natural 1 would kybosh things whether any influence was applied or not. Random events which affect everybody - like the King's current illness, for example - are a different matter. No individual character is particularly penalised and it does tend to add some unexpected colour to the game. Where randomness affecting individual characters is concerned, however, as we all know, some players are a lot less lucky than others where dice rolls are concerned. My own view is that the more the direction of an EG! campaign is determined by the machinations of the player characters, the better and more enjoyable it is for the players. If I want to play a game of chance I'll go here toytheater.com/snakes-and-ladders/ rather than to an En Garde! game. Conversely, the more the direction of an EG! game is determined by randomly administered dice rolls, the worse it gets - but unfortunately that seems to be the direction in which Liminal is going. The logical end result of this is that we all just sit back and let the GM's dice rolls tell us all what happens... As I said at the beginning, the above is just my opinion. The privilege of determining what happens with Liminal ultimately rests with the GM - who does all the considerable hard work, after all. I do think it might be useful at this point to determine how other players feel about the increasing randomness we are seeing inserted, however.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jun 29, 2020 21:57:24 GMT
I am somewhat ambivalent on this topic.
On the one hand, I like the idea of a little more churn in the population, by subjecting even the "immortals" (extremely cautious players) to a small chance of divine intervention.
On the other, I do think a one in six chance of failure is too much when overwhelming resources have been expended, even where mistresses are concerned. It may not be a huge deal to miss out when a small modification has been secured, but applying, for example, six level 9 favours to reduce a roll from 7 to 1, then seeing the whole plan evapourate on an unlucky roll, seems too much. A double one, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by vinlander on Jun 30, 2020 0:38:31 GMT
There is a saying in publishing that there is no urge greater than the desire to rewrite other's copy. I think there is no urge in gaming greater than a GM's desire to "improve" on rules of a game. I am an old dude. I started playing EG in high school (and I graduated in 1979). I have seen all kinds of homebrew alterations and additions.
The tension here is between gamers who want to maximize their character's climb with prudent use of the rules and interpersonal interaction, and those who want a "realistic" experience. The death roll of 13+ sums it up. No one goes off to war with a 120% chance of survival. But the field marshal is at much less risk than your average grunt. Over the years, I have played with GMs who take one view or the other and each game has its own flavor. Inevitably, the compromise is one between realism and playability. The original post in this thread suggests one player (who may well have expressed the views of many) believes we need to move the point of compromise.
Having been around several blocks several times here, I find that a guarantee of survival makes things a bit too predictable, but I think the concern raised is legitimate. Being spurned by a mistress on a roll of 1 is one thing (Indeed, in high school, I would have been very happy to be rejected 1 time in 6 -- much better than my actual track record) but seeing several favours turn to ashes on a similar roll does seem harsh, and perhaps, unrealistic.
This isn't MY game. I play it because the GM is kind enough to let me in. I have played both ways, and I am not sure the overall experience changes. Still, this is a useful issue to raise, and if I were to vote, I think the "double one" proposal is about right.
|
|
|
Post by Plyen De Mande on Jun 30, 2020 7:30:27 GMT
For influence rolls, automatic 1=failure camouflages someone who is using influence *against* a candidate. I would never do this myself but I think it adds colour to the game
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jun 30, 2020 8:29:25 GMT
For influence rolls, automatic 1=failure camouflages someone who is using influence *against* a candidate. I would never do this myself but I think it adds colour to the game So far in Liminal use of influence - either for or against - has been anonymous anyway. If using influence against an enemy, wouldn't the anonymous user prefer his enemy to know that his plans had gone awry thanks to malign influence, rather than random chance? Little satisfaction to be had in the latter scenario I would have thought...?
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jun 30, 2020 9:04:50 GMT
Being probably the character who is most affected by the forfeiting of the 13+ making you safe at war (as mu modifiers are quite good), I find that war gives many possible benefits, as MiDs giving SPs (1/MiD being permanent), promotions, loot ("or so they say", Huillaume thinks ) and the easiest way to receive titles (i nthis game, all titles given have been in combat, the only titled character who has not received this way bein gHelen, who adquiered it by marriage). Forcing a tisk, even a minimal one (12+ give you 50% daying and 50% dicing with death) does not seem to me noy only logical, but fair and just. For influence rolls, automatic 1=failure camouflages someone who is using influence *against* a candidate. I would never do this myself but I think it adds colour to the game So far in Liminal use of influence - either for or against - has been anonymous anyway. If using influence against an enemy, wouldn't the anonymous user prefer his enemy to know that his plans had gone awry thanks to malign influence, rather than random chance? Little satisfaction to be had in the latter scenario I would have thought...? I have another view on applications failing always on a 1; an NPC also applying to it and achieveing better result. Let's imagine Huillaume has applied for Citi Governor for the sake of simplicity, let's imagine he does not have the difavour of the KIng he has now), The needed roll is 6, and he has +2 due to SL, so 4+. With some firends help, he can apply 3 influences 9 to it, so leaving the roll to 1+. As I see it, the failing on a roll of 1 would not mean some NPC has used influence against him, but that another one has achieved a better roll and so is chosen for the office (let's say the Baron Dandy has rolles a modified 7, so higher than Huillaume's 6). So, I again find it logical, as NPCs, while not active, are still there (soemthing we easily forget except when they organize a ball or theatre show, or when they hols an office or rank that affects us), and they are likely to also aply for government (and other) offices.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jun 30, 2020 10:34:53 GMT
Then again, when it comes to rolling dice, Huillaume is one of luckiest characters in the game...
Two problems with credibility there:
1) The NPC won't have put in an application for the position in the first place, so how can he possibly achieve a better result when he isn't even in the race ?
2) Going back to Yves' example of six level 9 favours to reduce a roll from 7 to 1. That would require the marshalling of pretty much every lvl 9 favour in Paris. So where is your fictitious NPC ever going to get support from to beat that?
I agree with Yves and Vinlander that a 1 in 6 failure rate is too much, and moves Liminal too far away from EG! and too close to Snakes & Ladders. If we must have a risk of influence failing, I agree that having to throw a further 1 afterwards, giving a 1 in 36 chance like throwing a natural 12 at the front, would be much less questionable.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jun 30, 2020 12:58:47 GMT
Then again, when it comes to rolling dice, Huillaume is one of luckiest characters in the game... Well, I cannot complain, but not always so lucky. He cannot convince the Royal Equerry to allow him to go to the front (in two instances an 1 was rolled), and was not so lucky when at war with loot (while he had in othre ways, as titles)... Two problems with credibility there: 1) The NPC won't have put in an application for the position in the first place, so how can he possibly achieve a better result when he isn't even in the race ? 2) Going back to Yves' example of six level 9 favours to reduce a roll from 7 to 1. That would require the marshalling of pretty much every lvl 9 favour in Paris. So where is your fictitious NPC ever going to get support from to beat that? I agree with Yves and Vinlander that a 1 in 6 failure rate is too much, and moves Liminal too far away from EG! and too close to Snakes & Ladders. If we must have a risk of influence failing, I agree that having to throw a further 1 afterwards, giving a 1 in 36 chance like throwing a natural 12 at the front, would be much less questionable. I disagree. Those NPCs are assued to be applying, and so using influences, to the posts, just not published. Otherwise, if we assume no NPC applies for a post, when a post is not won by a PC, who wins it? In the case Yves says, ok, let's assume he has used six influences level 9 to lower the target number from 7 to 1, and then rolls an 1 (modiied, it's a 7). We can assume that Count Whoknows has also applied to it, having a +2 for SL and applying a single influence 9, but has rolled higher (so 5-6), and so won the post. If only characters applied to posts, then wining them would be automatic, as the posts must be filled. The auto-fail on an 1 is a good way to represent those multiple NPCs, most of them higher SL, that also run for the offices, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Jun 30, 2020 13:56:04 GMT
TL:DR – Chance of automatic failure should exist but the odds of automatic failure could be reconsidered.
The purpose of inserting randomization into a game is to simplify simulation of controllable events (anything that a player can impact by skill or influence) as well as those that are uncontrollable (things that are completely beyond the player’s ability to effect). Randomization also improves equality within games by subjecting all players to the same chances. I realize that saying luck of the dice means more fairness is counter-intuitive but everyone has the same chance of rolling a 6 on one roll of a six-sided die (16.66667%).
To keep a game simple for children to learn a basic rule set and concept of taking turns, Snakes and Ladders relies on completely randomized game play which also has the advantage giving a 4-year old as much chance of winning as a 40-year old. This game removes the controllable events in favor of simplicity and fairness.
Contrast that game against the Avalon Hill wargame Advanced Squad Leader which has rules for most controllable events in WWII squad combat that you could think of, where randomization is mostly limited to uncontrollable events and closely linked to the statistical odds of an event occurring (likelihood of a round penetrating a tank, for example).
An automatic chance of failure is built into many games. In Steve Jackson’s Generic Universal RolePlaying System (GURPS) “A roll of 18 is always a critical miss” regardless of skill level or modifiers. This is a probability of 0.9256%. By way of example, in the game of life (not Life), I have a highly proficient skill at opening a locked door with the proper key but per GURPS I have a 1% chance of failing spectacularly. GURPS mitigates this by suggesting that GMs not require a skill check for mundane circumstances but if I am trying to unlock the door while being chased by a vicious dog a skill check should be required. In a stressful situation, the chance of failure is reasonable, i.e. I drop the keys, I try the wrong key, the key breaks off in the lock, I am paying more attention to the dog than the key and I miss the slot, etc. Liminal having an automatic chance of failure is not unreasonable.
The counter to an automatic chance of failure is an automatic chance of success. Though it is not addressed in Liminal, outside of influencing (base 7+) and cases where a negative modifier is applied, it pretty much exists. Without modifiers, I have a 16.67% chance of successfully courting a mistress who is Way Out Of My League (6 above my SL), which is almost as good as an automatic chance of success.
The automatic chance of failure stands in place of more complicated simulation of the event. In Yves case of applying enough influence to make a 7+ appointment roll a sure thing, the automatic chance of failure stands in the place of simulating the actions of NPCs. Paris in the 17th century had 300,000 inhabitants at its low mark. Even if you assume that 99% of the population is ineligible to participate in the events of Liminal, that leaves 3,000 who are. It is reasonable to assume that at least one of those NPCs would be trying for the cushy appointment that the PC is. Instead of taking the time to simulate the actions and interactions of 3,000 NPCs, Liminal allows for a 16.67% chance of something happening that player can’t control. Maybe the appointer DID get out on the wrong side of the bed, or holds a grudge against the PC, or is being influenced against the PC by an NPC, or the application was lost by a minion handling the portfolio.
As should be evident to those still awake, I am in favor of a chance of automatic failure. Being able to mitigate all chance of failure makes the game too much like the “spreadsheets of war”. If I want to play a game that relies entirely on skill, I’ll play checkers with my granddaughter.
But as a simulation grognard, I would be interested in seeing a more realistic presentation of the odds of automatic failure. I feel that the 2.8% chance in battle of dicing with death is reasonable. The 16.7% chance of failure in other areas feel high.
Regardless, I join Gaston in recognizing the hard work that the GM does on our behalf.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jun 30, 2020 14:09:52 GMT
Really? Isn't it just a lottery where PCs have the edge? In the same way that NPCs can't use their rank mods when at the front ? If NPCs are going to start canvassing for influential support, we may as well all start playing NPCs...
When the whole of Paris (which is what those other lvl 9s represent) is singing the overwhelming praises of the Count's rival into the King's ear? Sorry, I still don't buy it.
Not so. In many cases there still won't be enough influence to make it automatic...
Sorry, autofail on 1 just means that, even if he has marshalled more than enough influence to secure the position, there is a good chance (one time in 6) that best man still doesn't win it. And to what useful purpose ?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jun 30, 2020 14:15:52 GMT
My own thoughts on this. To be clear, these are to encourage dicussion, not to shut it down!
That's arguable I think. There were certainly elements where risks could be mitigated out of existence (death rolls) but also ones where they couldn't. Character gen is an obvious one, but a more major one was the old "dagger to the throat" trick in duels which frequently lead to death.
As an amusing aside, that's exactly what the original "best laid plans of mice and men" means; no project can be planned to the point of certainty.
It's worth mentioning that in some areas Liminal mitigates risk rather than increasing it.
The increase in career options makes useless characters much less likely. A military ability of 1 is crippling in the core. Especially with the lack of education. There's also the fact that NPC military commmanders have a minimum MA of 3. And the dagger trick is no longer rewarding.
So far, that hasn't actually killed anybody. We've had two natural rolls of 12, both of whom would have died with their modifiers anyway.
Broadly, I think immortal demigods aren't good.
Several reasons.
In terms of simulation, it's not actually realistic. There's always a slim risk of death on the battlefield, even for a commander. (Harold's modified death roll at Hastings was probably about 20!)
Taking uncertainty out entirely is dull. That's just a personal view, not one everyone is likely to agree with.
If people want to avoid death rolls one obvious option is a non military career; I'm pretty sure that has increased the survivability of MA 1 characters.
One big philosophical difference I think I have with Gaston that is informing all of this discussion is this. I think I'm more inclined to see En Garde! as a more low status game where higher positions are the exception, where he sees it more as a game where the goal is to get into those higher positions and play from there. (Correct me if that's not a fair summary of the views!). This is a really important question. It not only has bearing on all these questions, but future developlement of Liminal. So I'd encourage others to share how they see this issue.
Heseltine never became party leader.
What I mean by that is that in anything involving NPC decisions, I'd argue that there's no such thing as a dead cert. A decision can be affected by mood, NPC machinations, the political climate. A chance of auto failure merely rolls all those potential factors into something that's easy to adjucate.
Also, suggesting a 1 in 6 chance of failure is the same as "putting it into the GM's dice-rolling hand" feels overdramatic. It's not the same thing as taking away player influence entirely.
That said:
That strikes me as too much. (Death is a much more serious consequence than having to find a different position to apply for).
However, I suggest we change it to natural 1 followed by natural 1 to 3.
For me it's less chance of failure than my natural inclinations but I don't have an issue with it. For Gaston I assume it's not mitigating risk, but as far as he's concerned anything that reduces chance is better than not doing so. What about other people?
Not all theatre companies will have the money to take on a new actor, no matter their talent.
I am obviously aware we're talking about poor Jason here, who has been kicked in the nuts repeatedly by the RNG. I think the one thing there is consensus on here is that any change applies to everyone; I get the impression my refusal to fudge dice rolls is supported by everyone as a good thing.
Ironically, that started with a random roll but is being adjucated by GM fiat currently. What I mean will be clear after the next turn; at that point I'm planning to see what people thought of it.
TBH, I think comparing it to Snakes and Ladders is hyperbolic. Risk management and pure chance aren't the thing. I'd suggest a closer parallel is something like Risk, where players choose to mitigate chance through their actions. You seem to be more in favour of something closer to Chess, where player action is the only factor that determines outcomes. Neither is right or wrong, they're just very different types of game and I'd agree that Liminal is currently closer to the former.
I want to highlight this because I think Vinlander has hit the crux of the disagreement. It's a "game" vs "simulation" argument. And as well as the specific rules, people may want to look at which approach they prefer.
Nobody should ever worry about giving their opinion. I've said this before, but I see this as OUR game. I do reserve the right to veto ideas (mostly if they would make the game non fun for me by increasing workload too much), but people who've seen me do so will agree I'm very clear if that's the case!
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jun 30, 2020 14:20:05 GMT
To keep a game simple for children to learn a basic rule set and concept of taking turns, Snakes and Ladders relies on completely randomized game play which also has the advantage giving a 4-year old as much chance of winning as a 40-year old. This game removes the controllable events in favor of simplicity and fairness. Geeky sidenote. Snakes and Ladders wasn't created as a game at all. It's a teaching tool to teach Hindu philosophy. The reason it's so brutal (the Victorians made it less so) is specifically because it's supposed to tell us that doing virtue is harder than doing vice. So yeah, it's pretty much the opposite of fair, especially in the original format.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jun 30, 2020 14:27:26 GMT
Final thought. In terms of auto successes, there has been one implemented though it's not in the rules. Marriage proposals are always accepted on a 1. Even the most fickle young lady may be bowled over by your charms!
That I suspect is uncontroversial.
Would people like that auto success to apply when courting engaged/married ladies, SL permitting?
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Jun 30, 2020 14:42:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jun 30, 2020 15:45:11 GMT
TBH, it's the journey that counts. What I like doing is starting with low SL characters and getting them up the highest reaches of Parisian Society. Once they are there, and there are no real challenges left, I tend to retire them somehow and start again. Getting back to the journey itself, obviously things which cut it short (and death is really good for that ) should be avoided and mitigated against so far as possible - so its difficult to view new departures over which there is no control and which increase the chances of the journey being cut short as particularly positive. Moving forward, journeys which last too long thanks to unavoidable delays cease to remain interesting - and random influence failures will cause unavoidable delays. Well, it wasn't the machinations of NPCs which kept Heseltine from the party leadership. It was the machinations of his fellow Conservative politicians - fellow 'Player Characters', if you will. This is kinda my point
|
|