|
Post by huillaume on Jun 30, 2020 16:53:27 GMT
I forgot before, but there's another (this time metagame) reason for auto-fail existing: While the applications for offices (or regiments, or whatever) are public, influneces used don't need to.
So, if Renné (hipotetical PC with SL 8) tries to enter the KFG, he needs a 5+, but, having no othre use for his influence, that expires this month, Huillaue could apply his appointment and personnel influence (6 and 5 respectively) on his behalf, without telling him, so making entry nearly automatic (not a usual thing, but may happen). Likelwise, if Miles (another hipotetical PC, Sl 14 and chevalier) appoints for governor of Aquitanie. He needs a 6, having a +2 DM for SL, and applies enough influences for an additional +3, so making it a nearly sure thing, but Huillaume, having a grudge against him and not wanting him to be the Governor of the province his state is in, decides to apply influences against him for a -3, but, again, keeping it secret, as the gruddge is not a public affair. If there's no autofail, Miles will know someone has applied such influence (the fact he suspects Huillaume or not it's another matter), while, if aurofail exists, he will always be left with the doubt about if somone steped on his way or he just had bad luck... IMHO, this gives life to more intrigues and suspicions, and even to a better play, as players will always be wondering if they really have this rotten luck or more enemies than they know aout, and makes the game more interesting, allowing wheels into wheels style gaming.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jun 30, 2020 17:55:02 GMT
Of course, one can answer my previous argument that for the same reason there should exist auto-success, as long as the prerequisites are met, and II cannot argue the logic on it...
Instances where players apply for a position they may not reach without influence while not having it to use are more rare, but there can exist (e.g. a SL 11 Baron applying for an intendency), or so meone can ply influences against (and for the same reasons influence can fail when used in behalf of someone, they also can fai lwhen used against someone).
In the first case, if he's chosen nonetheless, he can be kept wondering if he was relly so lucky or has a "guardian angel" that helps him, i nthe second the would be influencer against the PC would be wondering if this PC was really so lucky or has more friends than he knew about...
Of course, this would probably result in more people applying for posts they could not reach wihtout influence, despite they having it or not...
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jun 30, 2020 18:00:38 GMT
I am not necessarily against critical successes, although they should have the same chance as auto fails.
|
|
|
Post by Father William Souris on Jun 30, 2020 18:15:33 GMT
The game has chance. A fail on 1 is easily explained...but moving to a 2d6 resolution for all rather than 1d6 for some, 2d6 for others, would fix this?
Obviously that's a lot of work to change.
I've not played at higher echelons enough (or indeed at all) to see the player versus player use of favours.
I think the stretch of PCs over so many careers is, with so few players, as much of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jun 30, 2020 18:24:00 GMT
The game has chance. A fail on 1 is easily explained...but moving to a 2d6 resolution for all rather than 1d6 for some, 2d6 for others, would fix this? That changes the power o influences (or other DMs), as while in 1d6 each +1 (or -1) DM means a 1/6 change in probabilities, on 2d6 it can range from 1/36 (if you need a 13 and apply a +1) to 1/6 (if a 8+ is lowered to 7+)... Not saying this is good or bad, just pointing it. In general, it makes DMs (and so influence) less powerful...
|
|
|
Post by Father William Souris on Jun 30, 2020 18:32:00 GMT
So you increase the DM where applicable.. hence the extra work involved to adjust the rules etc.
maybe adding the Level of the Favour instead of the simple +1 (though then 2 level 3 is better than a 4, so that would need to be fixed)
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jul 1, 2020 12:15:19 GMT
As a compromise, how about making the additional roll depend on the modified requirement? This would make "excess" influence still useful.
For example, if influence, SL modifiers, etc. mean a 2 is required on d6 to secure the role, a natural 1 is, of course (and hopefully uncontroversially), a fail.
With the current rules, the only point in applying further influence is if you think someone might use influence against you. The same is true of courting, where buying presents to reduce the roll from 2 to 1 is a waste of money, unless you are concerned the lady may be chaste.
We could say that a modified requirement of 1 means 1 is a failure only if a second throw comes up 1-5, whilst a modified roll of 0 means failure on 1 followed by 1-4, and so on, but with 1/1 always a fail. The floor could be higher, so 1/(1-3) is always a fail, or whatever.
Perhaps this is too complex.
I should not lose much sleep over applications for appointments with an automatic 1 in 6 failure. I certainly never worried about the automatic courting failure, being generally more concerned about the chance of turning up on a doorstep laden with gifts - and debt - only to find another gentleman shared the same intent. Bad luck can seem extremely irritating at the time, but when chance is part of the game I try to embrace it and look to long-term averages. I still play cribbage regularly, even though I reckon at least one in three games is unwinnable against anyone with a basic grasp of the rules.
And they think it will make their lives easier, But the doorway before them is barred; And the game never ends, when your whole world depends On the turn of a friendly card.
Alan Parsons / Eric Woolfson
|
|
|
Post by Plyen De Mande on Jul 2, 2020 3:52:01 GMT
I know this song well. Over the years, whenever I am about to get the results of a significant medical test, I listen to it. Very calming. So if we have to put up with existential uncertainty as we all do, then I see no reason why our characters in this little game should not experience the same
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jul 3, 2020 8:29:40 GMT
Well, character gen is a pre-game thing. The options have always been to make the best of the character you got or arrange for an early death in hopes of getting a better one. Not sure what you mean by the 'dagger to the throat' trick - I've never run across it - but presumably it had to be specifically ordered by a duellist? He didn't unexpectedly find his dagger in his opponent's throat thanks to some random roll of the dice...? Indeed but, at least in my own experience, they usually go awry thanks to the actions (or inaction) of others rather than due to random events. Well actually the 'arrow in the eye' doesn't appear in any of the written accounts of the battle, only in the Bayeaux tapestry (where it probably refers to someone else). Harold was only still there to be killed since he'd refused to withdraw after his right flank had been lured to destruction (a shame since only 20% of the military strength of Anglo-Saxon England actually fought at Hastings and a rematch could have had a far different result). It's postulated that he stayed on thanks to seeing the battle as some sort of 'trial by combat' to determine whether or not God approved of his taking the crown. So it could actually be said that he died because he chose an unwise level of 'Conspicuous Gallantry'... Well, a 1 in 36 chance (natural 1 followed by natural 1) is still twice as much as the risk of death thanks to the consequences of throwing a natural 12 and degrades influence to 97.2% of its former value. A 1 in 12 chance of influence always failing (natural 1 followed by natural 1 to 3) would be 6 times more likely to occur than random death at the front and degrades influence to only 91.6% of its former value - which strikes me as far too much. This cuts the value of influence by 8.4%. How would you feel about an 8.4% pay cut ? Well, at the time the Duke's Men had no well-known actors in their ranks, and those they had were disinclined to perform. If the money problems were true, wouldn't they be more likely to sack one of their unknowns to make space for one of the two most famous actors in Paris - especially since he was actually eager to perform, get some bums on seats and put some cash in the coffers? Absolutely, but isn't changing the outcomes of dice rolls, as with applying 'autofailure on 1' to joining theatre troops, effectively fudging their modified results? This seems much more akin to joining a regiment than securing an appointment to me anyway. And to be perfectly honest, until this situation arose I'd completely missed 'the small print' regards autofailure on 1 now being applied to appointments across the board. Probably the Dice Gods - seeing that Huillaume couldn't attend any Royal Balls anyway - just decided to cancel five of them It was introduced as being at the opposite end of the games spectrum to EG!. I just don't feel that Liminal pulling any closer towards it would be an improvement is all.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jul 3, 2020 8:45:38 GMT
I don't know about slitting throats, but a knife thrown to the heart can be very damaging. A thrown dagger does 8 x strength damage in most cases, and has a 50% chance of striking home. When I noticed that in LPBS, I started instructing not to accept surrender if an opponent throws his weapon.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 3, 2020 10:46:26 GMT
Probably the Dice Gods - seeing that Huillaume couldn't attend any Royal Balls anyway - just decided to cancel five of them Hey, don't blame Huillaume! Let me point he was quite damnified by this: he could have attended 3 of those balls, as they were in Tuilleries, and Huillaume can attend Court events there (bold is mine)
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jul 3, 2020 11:34:06 GMT
It was a joke
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 3, 2020 11:37:03 GMT
It was a joke I knew, but I wanted to point how this affected Huillaume
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Valanon on Jul 5, 2020 10:24:32 GMT
Some keynotes on the topic of chance in Role Playing Games: - Chance is a factor in life. In every aspect of life be it fight, love, intrigue, greasy pole. - It should be possible to minimize chance in all aspects of life. - It should be impossible to reduce chance to zero. - There should not be an irrevocable drawback on a decision made by pure chance alone, especially concerning the death of a character.
In my opinion the following solutions would work within Liminal EnGarde! and the discussed cases.
If someone applies for an appointment and is denied due to a natural 1, although his added favors etc would have given him an automatic success, the position should not be filled with an NPC, but should remain vacant for one month. The appointer just didn´t feel right to appoint anyone to that position, whatever reason there may exist. No favors are lost and if favors were bought, the money will be given back. The next month all PCs may apply again for the appointment.
If someone applies for membership in a theater or musical company, a regiment, the Royal Academy of Science or anywhere else and is rejected by a natural 1, although he usually would have succeeded, he may reapply the next month with a +1 bonus. Again no favors will be used on the unsuccessful application.
If someone on the front would die of a natural 12, who usually would have survived, he could decide, either to face the 50-50-decision of death or the "Dicing with Death"-possibility or to surrender to the enemy´s forces straightforward, which obviously leads to being captured, but eliminates the 50%-chance of being killed right away
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 5, 2020 10:56:01 GMT
Some keynotes on the topic of chance in Role Playing Games: - Chance is a factor in life. In every aspect of life be it fight, love, intrigue, greasy pole. - It should be possible to minimize chance in all aspects of life. - It should be impossible to reduce chance to zero. - There should not be an irrevocable drawback on a decision made by pure chance alone, especially concerning the death of a character. I agree to this point, but I'm afraid I mostly disagree from now on In my opinion the following solutions would work within Liminal EnGarde! and the discussed cases. If someone applies for an appointment and is denied due to a natural 1, although his added favors etc would have given him an automatic success, the position should not be filled with an NPC, but should remain vacant for one month. The appointer just didn´t feel right to appoint anyone to that position, whatever reason there may exist. No favors are lost and if favors were bought, the money will be given back. The next month all PCs may apply again for the appointment. I frankly find this to say a natrural 1 only delays it, not it's an automatic failure. This aside, I find more logical an NPC has achieved the office than it has been left vacant. e.g.: Let's assume Huillaume raises his SL this turn (likely) and then aplies as a brigade adjoutant. He'd need a 6, but would havea +5 just for SL (he would be SL18, so 15 above the SL 3 required). Should the roll be an 1, what's more logical to think ,that the Brigadier found someone better or that he decided he doesn't need an adjutant this month?
IMHO, the former is quite more likely, as much as it may disturb Huillaume's plans...If someone applies for membership in a theater or musical company, a regiment, the Royal Academy of Science or anywhere else and is rejected by a natural 1, although he usually would have succeeded, he may reapply the next month with a +1 bonus. Again no favors will be used on the unsuccessful application. Aside form what I said before (though in this case he could try again next month), what would this +1 be useful for, if he already failed only on auto-fail? If someone on the front would die of a natural 12, who usually would have survived, he could decide, either to face the 50-50-decision of death or the "Dicing with Death"-possibility or to surrender to the enemy´s forces straightforward, which obviously leads to being captured, but eliminates the 50%-chance of being killed right away This I can find more logical, though it should be stated at the orders he is willing to surrund in this case, and in this case I'd give some penalty, as he voluntarly surrendered (if he is captured while dicing with death, I'd assume he was involutarly, being knocked out or overcome some way).
|
|