|
|
Post by huillaume on Jan 29, 2021 0:01:52 GMT
In the NPCs for hire thread, you defined the (to now) doctors according the inexperienced/experienced/professional rankings given in the Regiments tables.
If I'm allowed a suggestion (and probably for both cases, the NPCs for hire and the regimental tables), I'd go for the rankings given in chapters 35 and 37 of the rules (neophite, novice, and so on). This will give an idea of their fame, not always related to their skill (a neophite one may well be quite good, but new on the job).
As per Military officers, if not too much bookkeeping and job, the ranks of rookie/experienced/veteran could be exchanged by their historical average BRs with the number of months in parenthesis in the PCs case (e-g- 4(5) would mean ABR of 4 along 5 months in campaign). This would give also an idea of their fame, not skill (it might coum from being lucky/unlucky or because of true skill)
Of course, for NPCs this could be inferred from a table tied to their skill...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jan 29, 2021 0:09:23 GMT
In the NPCs for hire thread, you defined the (to now) doctors according the inexperienced/experienced/professional rankings given in the Regiments tables. If I'm allowed a suggestion (and probably for both cases, the NPCs for hire and the regimental tables), I'd go for the rankings given in chapters 35 and 37 of the rules (neophite, novice, and so on). This will give an idea of their fame, not always related to their skill (a neophite one may well be quite good, but new on the job). I'm not necessarily against that, but I'm not sure how I'd implement it in practice. The current system has the benefit of simplicity and lack of bookkeeping, so a new one would need to have the same advantages. As I said, I wouldn't mind that, I'd just need a suggestion of how to put it into practise that doesn't involve me tracking every doctor and all their non player related cases. That one is way too much bookkeeping I'm afraid. I already keep track of skill increases, promotions and their ratings over a single campaign for court martial reasons. Tracking them over years would take too long. |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jan 29, 2021 0:57:35 GMT
In the NPCs for hire thread, you defined the (to now) doctors according the inexperienced/experienced/professional rankings given in the Regiments tables. If I'm allowed a suggestion (and probably for both cases, the NPCs for hire and the regimental tables), I'd go for the rankings given in chapters 35 and 37 of the rules (neophite, novice, and so on). This will give an idea of their fame, not always related to their skill (a neophite one may well be quite good, but new on the job). I'm not necessarily against that, but I'm not sure how I'd implement it in practice. The current system has the benefit of simplicity and lack of bookkeeping, so a new one would need to have the same advantages. As I said, I wouldn't mind that, I'd just need a suggestion of how to put it into practise that doesn't involve me tracking every doctor and all their non player related cases. That one is way too much bookkeeping I'm afraid. I already keep track of skill increases, promotions and their ratings over a single campaign for court martial reasons. Tracking them over years would take too long. The main advantages, IMHO, would be consistency of the game and a more "realistic" view, as people would be seen as their fame shows, not as their skills are. A lucky butcher might have had 2 good results and be seen as competent, and a neophite one can have skill 6 (or even 7), but still don't have a name in Paris (or even having higher skill, but too low SL to be promoted). This would also help on their honoraries... As per military men, again is their success record what would be seen, not their real skill, and in many instances (at least not uncommon for players) they would be simply "untested". An officer could have an ABR of 2 and be just a lucky incompetent (mostly if rolls are few) or, as Huillaume, despite being already seen as experienced in the current system, if judged by the last campaign (spring) it would show up as 5 (3), as he had really rotten luck those 3 months... Of course, the more the times he'd rolled, the most accurate this fame would be... And there's no real need for that much bookkeeping. For NPCs just make a table, and at best roll for improvement (or worsening in case of military officers, though they don't use to last that much) each month or season (not easy, but possible). Only PCs should keep a more accurate tracking, but for professionals you'd already have it, and for military, well, you're not alone, and each one should check his character's history (as per Huillaume, it would be 4 (8), as his ABR along 8 times he has commanded troops in battle is 3.75 (rounded to 4)). |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Jan 29, 2021 1:49:44 GMT
What is the practical purpose for what you are proposing?
A character's rank, medals, and MiDs are better indications of fame than average battle result.
If you are wanting to obscure a character's martial ability more than the current ranking system, removing them altogether would be best.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jan 29, 2021 2:06:29 GMT
What is the practical purpose for what you are proposing? A character's rank, medals, and MiDs are better indications of fame than average battle result. If you are wanting to obscure a character's martial ability more than the current ranking system, removing them altogether would be best. As I said, mostly realism. Giving a hint of the quality of NPCs according to their professional reputation (as you pointed fame may be an ambiguous word), not their skill (though probably related to it). |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jan 29, 2021 10:16:56 GMT
As a general rule of thumb, I generally see realism as a nice bonus, but probably not enough to justify a change on its own.
The added rules about sieges changing to assaults that Hulluame wrote are a good example of the kind of thing I'm generally inclined to put in. While it might be a bit more realistic, the clincher for me is that they added more player choice, by things like personal tactics influencing results.
|
|
