Proposed Status Rule Changes

[Ymbert Montgomery]

This was something I took from elsewhere, but having just done some calculations it's remarkably harsh, especially for higher SL characters.

I still like the basic concept (make every SP count, make people aggressively pursue SP) but I'm thinking it should be moderated a bit. I propose that every reference to "Any excess/deficit over/under 2*SL is retained" with "Any excess/deficit over/under 1.5*SL is retained."

What do people think? Still keeps the principles, but makes it a bit less vicious.

Unless anyone has any objections I'll use this system for returns instead.

[mochnant]

Is there really a need to maintain a penalty? What if the cost to the next social level was removed from the total SP earned any anything else carried over? Then everyone would be able to aggressively pursue SP and not worry about losing it. You could always cap the SPs at 2x of SL (or whatever value X).

Seems like a simpler system.

That said, I have no objection to 1.5x instead of 2x in the current rule.

[gaston]

Just an observation, but isn't this totally counter-intuitive regards the academy / university rules? Most courses seem to demand three weeks study in the same month - but a week isn't much time to get 2*SL SPs is it? Surely the end result will be to make taking such courses impractical...?

[Deleted]

It is designed to force you to either have a far number of SPs carried over either having earned them (mistress, regiment, house, appointment, etc.) or give up a SL the following month if you try to do the studies two months in a row. It is down to only losing 1.5 x SL rather than 2 x SL.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Yeah, Turgul pretty much has it. It's there to both allow every SP to count (in the original you could obviously get more than twice your SL in a month with nothing to show for it) but also to require hard decisions when it comes to study.

Thematically, I think it makes sense that someone who spends their time cooped up studying has trouble keeping up with the cutthroat social scene of Paris, especially at higher SLs. (So feature, not bug in that case)

It's worth noting that both art and academia (two of the main careers that have issues with these rules) are very powerful when they get going. Because several pieces of art can be shown at once it can be a source of lots of SP at the same time. And it's the easiest way to get patronage, which has a lot of benefits. Academia is probably the most likely way of getting a title and is certainly the easiest way to do so without the risk of death the army gives. So in terms of balancing those careers start off in difficulties but gain advantage later.

(It was reduced from 2x SL because it generally seemed to be felt that was too harsh in terms of how likely it made losing SLs)

[gaston]

I've just tried to plan Helen's progress for the next three months, but this introduces a variable too far and I've given up - another reason I don't like this feature. 

On the studies front, coupled with the 'three weeks in the same month" requirement, it's a double whammy which means it makes most sense to do as much studying as possible at low SLs (which means players sending in orders for months before starting to actually play - which doesn't seem like a good thing).  (To be honest, I don't see any logical reason for insisting that a three-week course has to be completed in a single month anyway).

5.8 While these calculations may seem to be complex the idea is to make all SP gains and losses

count for something and thus encourage better role playing.

I think it's a negative on the role-playing front too really.  Effectively it's forcing everyone to spend time maintaining (not even improving) SL and leaving little time to spend weeks which further RP aims - but don't accrue any SPs.  Was the system in force in the game you ran where a character spent 24 weeks studying as an SoT for purely RP purposes ?

It's also an extra complex calculation which has to be done for every character every turn.  That might not seem a lot now, but a year down the line with 20+ players...

I've ditched rules from Fontainebleau which seemed like a nice idea at the time, but which in practice proved too fiddly for the pay off - something this rule has written all over it. 

And from a players point of view it just makes their characters' lives harder than they need to be with no positive payoff at all.  Consequently it's a rule players will put up with to play the game - but really adds nothing to it. 

Is the game you took the rule from still going ?

[Yves Eau]

I rather like the house rule for SP, and do see a positive side. The "precipice" at 3 x (SL + 1) in a single month tended to focus me entirely on reaching that goal, whilst trying not to waste valuable time and money gaining excess SP. I might tell myself I'd spend a month or two climbing the ladder, then relax to work on a long term goal like training, but I rarely did, and just ran hell for leather, month after month, climbing the greasy pole. The Liminal method makes it worthwhile to score 2 x SL in a month, as the stored points can be accumulated to climb a rung next month, or the month after. Missing your target by a point or two is far less serious a setback, and an overshoot sets you up for the next move, rather than being wasted.

Gaston sees no logic in having to complete courses in a month; I see none at all in having discrete steps in social growth. In my distant youth, I generally found it advantageous to cram for exams to gain qualifications, but I never made the same effort to impress so much at a single social event I would be accepted by a more prestigious clique. The house rule means we can effectively climb part of a level each month; equally, any drop is likely to be less than a whole grade.

As for calculation and tracking, I added a simple formula to my orders sheet to calculate SP carried forward. It does not yet cope with dropping a level, but that will be a straightforward enhancement should I ever need it. I agree it introduces greater uncertainty if you try to plan months ahead; c'est la vie.

[huillaume]

I mostly agree with jeanpaulmarsaud here, but also for another reason:

WHile its relatively easy to achieve the Sps to rraise low levels, its quite difficult to achieve the large numbers you need to raise higher ones. Having the extra Sps carried from previous turn(s) may be handy there:

e.g. a character with SL 10 needs 40 SPs to raise to SL11 (45 to do it without a penalty next turne). That's sure not easy, but if he can accrue about 25 per turn, he will carry 10 to next one, where, if again can accrue 25, he will in fact having 35, so carrying 20 for next turn, where he could raise his SL with little problem

OTOH, this same rule makes your SP needs per turn larger, unless you want to carry over nevative ones, and makes successive raisings rarer (as you need 4.5 x SL points to raise your Sl and start next turn without an SL  penalty).

All in all, I se it as positive, as lower levels are easier to be raised (even in consecutive turns), while allowing high SLs to be raised easier, albeit at a slower pace. It also means tha tif you have a very large ammount of SPs one month, they will not be fully lost for thext one (or even more).

[gaston]

Sept 5, 2019 10:22:19 GMT Yves Eau said:

As for calculation and tracking, I added a simple formula to my orders sheet to calculate SP carried forward. It does not yet cope with dropping a level, but that will be a straightforward enhancement should I ever need it.

Maybe you could send me a copy of the spreadsheet ?

[Ymbert Montgomery]

This does seem to be something of a marmite rule but I'm afraid it's one of the few the refs like quite strongly! (In fact, we have been wondering whether we made a mistake to make it easier at 1.5 but think it would be unfair to change it back).

[/i]

Sept 5, 2019 7:38:53 GMT gaston said:

I've just tried to plan Helen's progress for the next three months, but this introduces a variable too far and I've given up - another reason I don't like this feature. 

I'm not convinced that being able to plot progress down to the decimal point for three months is desireable tbh. I think a certain level of uncertainty is both more realistic and makes the game less of a mathmatical exercise.

On the studies front, coupled with the 'three weeks in the same month" requirement, it's a double whammy which means it makes most sense to do as much studying as possible at low SLs (which means players sending in orders for months before starting to actually play - which doesn't seem like a good thing).  (To be honest, I don't see any logical reason for insisting that a three-week course has to be completed in a single month anyway).

Hmm, this I'm more inclined to agree with however.

To make this closer to the Military Academy what do people think if any of the courses in question require four weeks of study or three weeks in the same month? It allows a bit more flexibility.

I think it's a negative on the role-playing front too really.  Effectively it's forcing everyone to spend time maintaining (not even improving) SL and leaving little time to spend weeks which further RP aims - but don't accrue any SPs. 

However, it also strongly encourages player interaction.

Was the system in force in the game you ran where a character spent 24 weeks studying as an SoT for purely RP purposes ?

Actually, tbf, the Status System was but the SOT study could be done at his own pace.

It's also an extra complex calculation which has to be done for every character every turn.  That might not seem a lot now, but a year down the line with 20+ players...

From a ref point of view, this isn't an especially complicated calculation to work out, it's just an extra step.

If you actually want to look at where the workload is coming from it's more that a) we try to write out press reports in a way that makes them a bit more flavourful than a turn report and b) the fact that not only are turn returns hand moderated, but we try to tailor them individually. (So frequently every character at a party will get a subtly different report of the party depending on their interests and relations with other characters, rather than it being a simple cut and paste).

I'm not complaining about either of those things. We enjoy doing them and like to think it's one of the things we offer that makes Liminal stand out from the other equally good but different games out there. But it's undeniably the case that compared to those a quick calculation takes a negligable amount of time.

I've ditched rules from Fontainebleau which seemed like a nice idea at the time, but which in practice proved too fiddly for the pay off - something this rule has written all over it. 

And from a players point of view it just makes their characters' lives harder than they need to be with no positive payoff at all.  Consequently it's a rule players will put up with to play the game - but really adds nothing to it. 

I'd disagree there's no positive payoff.

There's nothing more frustating then needing 15 SP to go up a SL and only getting 14 and having nothing to show for it. This makes SP count.

Is the game you took the rule from still going ?

I'd have to look up which games (it was several I took them from) it was specifically but I'm pretty sure several of them were long running.

Due to the normal churn that En Garde games seem to go through I'm not convinced this is a good metric of judgement anyway. If longevity were the deciding factor we'd all take Pevan's house rules and be done with it!

[Ymbert Montgomery]

As a sidenote if JPM is willing to post up his spreadsheet we're happy for people to use it. It's very straightforward to process.

[Alain Andre Durant]

Aug 5, 2019 23:06:08 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

This was something I took from elsewhere, but having just done some calculations it's remarkably harsh, especially for higher SL characters.

I still like the basic concept (make every SP count, make people aggressively pursue SP) but I'm thinking it should be moderated a bit. I propose that every reference to "Any excess/deficit over/under 2*SL is retained" with "Any excess/deficit over/under 1.5*SL is retained."

What do people think? Still keeps the principles, but makes it a bit less vicious.

Unless anyone has any objections I'll use this system for returns instead.

The 2 x SL SP penalty was to match the monthly maintenance in livres. In the original game, all SP are lost and each game month begins at zero SP. With allowing SP to carry over from month to month, the penalty was important because otherwise characters could continue upward in SL month after month for a while based on one or two good months, and do nothing else. The penalty encourages RP and characters to actively pursue accumulating SP each month.

In the accumulation of SP, different things have been tried, such as 4 x SL (current) vs 3 x (current SL + 1), which for an SL 7 character would mean 28 SP vs 24 SP.

In the end, the required accumulation of SP to level and the monthly penalty, and whether SP zero out or not, or if negative SP can be carried over to the next month, etc., they all determine what range of SL the majority of the characters will be. Lowering the penalty or accumulation requirement will encourage higher SL characters overall. Raising them will encourage lower SL character overall.

[Alain Andre Durant]

Sept 9, 2019 20:22:58 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

I think it's a negative on the role-playing front too really.  Effectively it's forcing everyone to spend time maintaining (not even improving) SL and leaving little time to spend weeks which further RP aims - but don't accrue any SPs. 

The different "schools" were designed to be similar to the Military Academy with fewer/more weeks and costs and requirements to gain skill levels as was thought appropriate to that particular skill. A better system might be to not require the weeks to be in the same month, but that a week of accumulated is lost per month where at least one week does not occur. However, that would mean that the cost of the weeks would be weekly instead of "per course." "Per course," like with the military academy three-week course, is the reason the weeks were required in the same month. Otherwise the bookkeeping (keeping up with how many weeks of a course a character had left to take month to month) becomes cumbersome.

Was the system in force in the game you ran where a character spent 24 weeks studying as an SoT for purely RP purposes ?

Actually, tbf, the Status System was but the SOT study could be done at his own pace.

The 24 weeks was decided because it allowed someone to spend a year in religious study, two weeks a month, and be ordained shortly after. It was felt that characters with low levels would most likely pursue a career in the church, and getting enough SP each month to maintain their SL was less of a burden at low levels. The loss of weeks was really to encourage people to continue study instead of letting it drop, and to prevent someone from accumulating weeks spread months apart and finally, after years of game time, suddenly becoming a priest as this did not make much logical sense. A religious order is not likely to ordain someone that comes to seminary for study once every three or six months.

If I were to alter the penalty for not studying each month, I might lower it to each month without study loses one week of accumulated study instead of half.

Don't forget that they are benefits to being a member of the clergy once ordained: lower monthly maintenance, automatic confession, no FC requirement, freedom from duels and duel penalties, and SP gains at higher levels without required duties.

It's also an extra complex calculation which has to be done for every character every turn.  That might not seem a lot now, but a year down the line with 20+ players...

Try 50 +

I'd disagree there's no positive payoff.

There's nothing more frustating then needing 15 SP to go up a SL and only getting 14 and having nothing to show for it. This makes SP count.

Agreed. This was why carrying over SP from month-to-month was introduced. Falling just short one month almost guarantees making it the next month.

Is the game you took the rule from still going ?

I'd have to look up which games (it was several I took them from) it was specifically but I'm pretty sure several of them were long running.

Due to the normal churn that En Garde games seem to go through I'm not convinced this is a good metric of judgement anyway. If longevity were the deciding factor we'd all take Pevan's house rules and be done with it!

The vast majority of En Garde! games perish because of the amount of work required of the Administrator to put out a turn. Each player requires a certain amount of time to adjudicate the turn. Then writing the newspaper requires more time. Having a good spreadsheet system helps, but it still comes down to the person hosting / running the game and the time they have to give to it.

[Yves Eau]

How are fractional SP rounded for the carry-forward? Is it always to a higher integer? For example 1.5 becomes 2, whilst -1.5 becomes -1.

I used ROUNDUP in my spreadsheet, but realised when testing this rounds -1.5 to -2. I have changed it to use CEILING.MATH, which rounds to a higher number by default (towards zero if negative).

What is the purpose of this complexity in rule 5.4 when losing a level?
    "refunded 1.5*the new SL in SPs or the entire amount of SPs (Whichever is smaller)"

Unless I have missed something, it is not possible to drop a level for insufficient SP if 1.5*newSL < SP.  I have coded my formula to leave SP unchanged if a level is lost. Is there any situation that will not work?

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Heh, I'm afraid you're starting to lose me, I have a not particularly good Maths GCSE.

I've been using ROUNDUP (so 1.5 becoming 2 and -1.5 becoming -2 is correct). This is mostly theoretical though. I'm not sure it's actually come up yet and if so it's not done so frequently.

And you're probably right on the SP just being leaved unchanged. I think that may be a relic of the old "refunded 2* the new SL in SPs that I took from elsewhere.