frogspawner

I've tried various Pendragon-derived Traits mechanics over the last few years.

The current version is looking good so far:

Each character has a few (up to CHA/4, round down) player-chosen Traits.

If they are doing something in the manner of one of their traits, they can have a re-roll (max one per session per trait).

Doing something significantly in the manner of a trait (or consistently/persistently over a session), then...

(1) if they have it, they gain a 'Bonus Experience Point' (similar to Legend Improvement Rolls).

or (2) if they don't have it, they gain the 'threat' of acquiring the Trait - another such act means they get the Trait, displacing a current one (player's choice which).

Yes, all the Cults have a few 'Favoured Traits' (just 3). And progress in cults depends on 5 Cult-Favoured Skills - but each cult Trait exempts the character from one of those five.

This mechanic is good because: It's the simplest; No tracking of percentages for Traits; Only relevant ones are listed; Driven by player choice/actions; Carrot not stick (mostly) - but can still cause awkward 'allegiance' changes and religious problems.

Thoughts?

We come from DND backgrounds and used to the system where you resolve all actions on your turn, so the statement of intent is new to us.

Actually, I think D&D's initiative mechanism is simpler & quicker. Just keep using that in your BRP, I do with no problem. No need to worry about Statements of Intent then.

The Skill Ratings list, from the 'Big Gold Book' pp48-49, could be the basis for any such Difficulty Chart:

"05% or less: Novice. A character with a skill rating this low is a complete amateur, and has little hope of succeeding even at Easy tasks...

06–25%: Neophyte: A character with ratings in this range is either a beginner or has a small amount of knowledge of the subject at hand. The phrase ‘knows enough to be dangerous’ applies well here...

26–50%: Amateur. Ratings in this range indicate a little talent, some rudimentary training, or hobby level dabbling in a skill...

51–75%: Professional. A 50% rating in a skill allows your character to make a living using that skill...

76–90%: Expert. Skills in this range indicate advanced expertise in a given field: your character has a reasonable chance to succeed even at Difficult tasks. Few people ever attain such mastery of a given skill...

91% or higher: Master. Only a handful of true geniuses attain this level of mastery..."

There's also the Language Fluency Table (p67), which is similar - but more amusing.

The difficulty of the task varies depending on who is attempting it.

I don't see it that way. The task is still either Easy, or Normal, or Hard or whatever.

If that mountain cliff isn't changing itself depending on who approaches it, then multipliers dont make alot of sense to me as the mechanism to say how hard it is; they dont affect everyone evenly. Now if climbing the mountain cliff is deemed a -20% modifier, then that mountain is straight up 20% more difficult than the 0 modifier task, regardless of who is trying to climb it.

You're thinking in terms of +/- percentage modifiers, which I don't use because I don't like 'em (makes maths harder for calculating specials/crits/fumbles). But if you think in terms like "This cliff is twice as hard as usual" or "twice as easy", it feels fine.

I don't have a problem with people of different skill levels being affected differently. A non-climber, like me, wouldn't have a 20% greater chance of climbing that "+20%" cliff - I'd still have virtually Zero chance. A moderately skilled potter (say) could turn out decent easy-to-make pots routinely (50% skill, x2 for easy), but fancy ones (normal chance) would require a master (90%) and the jobber would fail half the time. But giving a +50% modifier for an easy pot isn't the same: me, the useless potter, should still have virtually NO chance - not 55%.

The problem I see with this approach is that the mountain cliff becomes impossible to climb for someone with a skill of 19 %, no matter how hard and how often he tries. ... I very much prefer my characters to be "heroic" ...

I can see that. And with multipliers, it's easy to see what IS heroic - you immediately know the number you're rolling for, and your chance to make it (because it's the same number). 'Roll and add' (to get a target number) is less clear and loses that immediacy.

I really like alot of the BRP Stuff I've been reading; but I'm not a big fan of the roll under mechanic. I think it works great for opposed tasks, but works less well for static tasks. I dislike that you're essentially rolling against your own skill, instead of rolling against the difficulty of the task.

Since you like BRP 'd100 roll under' for some things (opposed rolls <spit>), the proposed "Inversion" to RoleMaster-style 'roll over' seems like a much more drastic change than really necessary. (And would create a hybrid system, essentially d20-style but rolled on d100). To me, that wouldn't be BRP at all, or even proper d100.

So what's wrong with 'rolling against your own skill'? I think that's a major good aspect of BRP-type systems.

There are plenty of degrees of difficulty that can be set, so it's not always the same % as your skill, by a long chalk. Some tasks will be Easy (x2) or Hard (x1/2), or (virtually) Automatic or Impossible (I sometimes call for x10 or x1/10 rolls for these). Your thread has made me realize, though, that we don't only have those levels of difficulty - I'm sure it's common practice to say some tasks require a Special (1/5th) or even a Critical (1/20th) success. So there are plenty of 'degrees of success', plenty of 'targets' that can be set.

Might what's really needed here be a translation between D&D-style target numbers and the task's requirement for Easy/Standard/Hard and/or Normal/Special/Critical rolls?

For Mass Combat I recommend Hordes of the Things - and the rules are here. Impeccable authentic wargame pedigree, simple (but nuanced) and surprising fun to play. And you only need one d6 ! (ok, two would be better). Plus a dozen or two snipped-up bits of cardboard (though, again, a few figures might be better).

HOTT is good for battles representing at least a few hundred on a side, I'd say, as it's all about command-and-control and morale (represented very slickly). But if you wanted something to bridge the gap between that and normal BRP individual-scale combats, I recently came up with some v.simple rules for scaling-up normal BRP - which worked out pretty well at a session the other weekend, so give me a shout. (Now, where did I put that...?)

...a sorcerer needs some enchanted items, and with the rules from Mongoose Runequest II (Legend probably has the same rules for enchantments ?)...

The Legend core rulebook has no rules for enchantments (or any magic items) that I can spot. (Only mention is of finding components to aid 'a Sorcerer or other magician in creating a magical treasure' as a possible quest).

Never noticed it as a problem. The system generally doesn't require much in the way of POW or Magic Points: deliberately so. On the other hand, the cost for characteristic gains is so prohibitive that it effectively takes them out of the game unless you're giving out a lot more Improvement Rolls than suggested.

Hmm, both these aspects may limit character advancement a bit more than people might like, I suspect. (Until a Legend expansion book appears, that is... )

Thanks, gents. Glad I wasn't just missing something.

So - next question: Is lack of POW Gains a 'problem' that needs fixing? Has anyone played enough Legend (or MRQ2, presuming the rule was the same) to tell whether POW/Magic Points progression is too slow, or perhaps is fine anyway?

Can someone help me with this Newbie-type question, please: Is the only (normal) way to increase POW by the spending of Improvement Points, like any other characteristic? (That is, if your POW is 10, spend 10 to go up to 11)

Or have I just not yet found the traditional RQ 'Increase POW by overcoming someone else's POW' rule?

Looking at the list of Dukes of Angouleme, there was only one "Duc

C. d'Angouleme" in the 16th century, Charles de Valois...

Or it could have been this one (though that'd make it actually C15th, specifically tail-end of 1495):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Count_of_Angoul%C3%AAme

The fall from a horse bit fits him better, actually told in the section on his wife:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_of_Savoy

I'm working on my campaign setting for a Colony Era Jorune game. The idea is that the PC's will be movers and shakers in the fate of their own Colony site. Local population is about 250 per site. However, they will also need to work / cooperate with the other 79 colony sites. Initially there will be a strong central government, but this will fragment over time. Eventually it will degenerate into a post apocalypse setting.

Can't help thinking realistic politics would be impossibly difficult to simulate. So why not do like I intend for an upcoming campaign? That is, use real-world nations/factions to model the ones in your setting (though you'd probably want to change the names). Then to come up with the politics all you have to do is watch the news.

1. Everyone declares statement of intent.

2. Everyone moves in order of DEX rank.

3. Everyone acts in order of DEX rank (modified by movement).

4. Resolution (does that mean everyone rolls actions, THEN everyone rolls damage?).

Where is this written in the rules? I cannot find any paragraph saying that you move on a DEX rank and fight on another.

That's the version given in the BRP Quick Start rules - which doesn't match The Book.

In the Book, 2 is the "Power Phase" where spells etc are cast... on INT Rank - yet another unnecessary complication.

(The Quick Start doesn't have magic/powers, so I guess a 'Move Phase' was thoughtlessly bunged in as a placeholder).

I reckon "Resolution" just means bookkeeping stuff - like, if your character's not been healed above 0hp by now, it falls down dead.

But I agree the whole thing is too complex, and Statement Of Intent should be dropped in favour of D&D-style moves and actions on initiative. It doesn't favour low-initiative characters too much, since the high-initiativers will get to react to the situation just the same when the next round comes...

The examples which come to my mind when looking at the setting I am currently working on are trade negotiations and diplomatic negotiations as well as "politics" of all kinds.

Yes, I see the benefit there.

PCs: "No way you're getting our weapons!" Opposed rolls ensue, people on both sides are getting stressed and nervous. Finally, the lawmen triumph by at least a little. ... If they [the PCs] decide to shoot nevertheless, they get a -10- to -30 on their Fast-Draw, depending on how badly they failed the social conflict, and a subsequent -10 on their attack rolls. This alone would make many players far more likely to go along with the results!

Thanks. That's just the sort of detail I wanted. So - rather like the penalties for a failed Strategy roll, or the like? Mmm, somehow, I don't think it's be enough to change players' minds, except in very marginal situations (meaning where they'd be likely to go along with the authorities anyway).

However, in EvilSchemer's situation - where the players know these 'lawmen' are the bad guys, and also know they have just aided the murderer of the bad guy boss's associate - I really don't think that would be enough to convince them to surrender. (Frankly, I think surrendering then would be crazy.) I think they'd just resent the rules/GM for disadvantaging them.

Yes, no mechanic can solve a problem with a problem player.

It's not right to label someone as a 'problem player' simply because they don't like that type of Social Mechanics. I don't*.

In my view the main problem is that the use of social skills suffers from an "overlap" of game mechanics and roleplaying, character actions and player actions.

How a player reacts and chooses for their character to act in a perceived situation is role playing.

Yes to these points. Roleplaying - that's what players are for. Their characters should do what they want. Exceptions should be very rare (like in CoC, and even then only when your character has gone mad, as it is after all what the game is about).

... there is one point you are not taking into account: the risk of introducing (sometimes involuntarily) excess GM fiat.

That's probably true. On reflection, I guess I fall into the trap of not making players roll (FastTalk, CHAx5, whatever) every time their character says something. When they say something perfectly reasonable (IMO), my NPCs usually accept it (because I myself am, as we all know, perfectly reasonable). In real life, as we also all know, that's not the case - so players should probably roll every time... On failed rolls, my NPCs would adopt a more realistic, unreasonable position!

Do you take shampoo and conditioner into the shower?

Use 2-in-1 actually. Thanks for caring.

*PS: Though now I've seen your example, I wouldn't object to Social mechanics so much - however, also I don't think they'd actually work, not often enough to be worthwhile anyway.

Same thing with social mechanics, ... they can dishearthen you and make you hesitate, giving penalties on your skill rolls if you later decide to escalate to a fight.

What about an example of how the given stand-off might have worked out using such mechanics?

Seems like a small flame-war erupted and died here without my notice. Well, well. No more "fake" accounts please. Play nice...

Referee! Your air-brushing posts by "Paolo Alephtart" (or whatever-his-fake-name-was) from history has left my post #56 referencing them looking like... gibberish! I ought to sue. I demand... er, oh never mind.

I've been trying to develop a system of traits for player characters. The latest iteration looks good so far:

PCs choose 2 or more traits, up to CHA/4 (from the 'industry-standard' Pendragon list). They don't have percentages - you either have them or don't (well, nearly). If they do something 'in the manner of' one of their traits, their current action can have a re-roll.

That's the basic system. There is just a little bit more to it, though: If a character does something very notably in the manner of some trait they don't have, the GM may award them a 'threat' of gaining that trait (player lists it in brackets); if they do something similar again, then they fully gain that trait - which displaces one of their existing traits, of their choice.

That's it. No mind control of the players, no coercion (aside from telling someone they have a certain trait if they repeatedly, significantly act that way - but that's just stating a fact).

Of course, I also equate certain traits with D&D-style alignments (e.g. Vengeful = Evil). So a quick tot-up of your traits reveals your alignment. Doesn't mean much, but some players are desperate to avoid their beloved character being labelled as "Evil"...

Didn't mean a 'convince the PCs there's only one option' railroad, just 'convince the players there's another viable option' - that would be enough. But in this case I reckon that'd be impossible, because frankly I agree with them that surrender was not viable.

The "quick roll" needn't be that quick - as much RP as they like, then roll it. (Out in the open, with pre-stated modifiers if you really think trust in the GM is so lacking). And once they fail - that's it, no other option but fight or surrender. I really don't think 90% of players in such a situation would surrender, though - I'd say 90% would fight.

The players are probably thinking there are other options, too - 1) Brazen it out so the Lawmen go away, or at least let them keep their guns; and 2) Win a firefight; and 3) Lose and blame the GM for forcing them into a fight that was 'unbalanced'!

Like I said, I think the key lies in convincing the players that their characters will die if there's a firefight. Picking on one, and showing it to be true if he doesn't agree, might be what it takes to convince the others...

...of course, the players might win (though I'd expect the Lawmen to feign withdrawal and set up an ambush if the odds aren't already overwhelming enough). Either way the outcome must be the player's choice.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much option to violence in this situation. So the only reasonably possible outcomes are 1) the PC get shot; 2) the Bad Guy Lawmen get shot; or 3) enough of the PCs get shot that the remainder decide to surrender. Or even 4) EvilSchemer's rebels/ninjas turn up and start a co-incidental firefight... but like I said, that can only be a very-rarely-used solution.

PS: If a 'Social Conflicts' system existed that could actually convince the players to surrender, that would be fine. I don't reckon there is, or could be, such a system though.

PPS: The 'alignments' mechanism I suggested before probably wouldn't work in this situation, because the murder-victim was a bad guy, so to kill him probably wasn't that 'evil' after all... (in the context of a game where you're supposed to kill the bad guys).

I did provide one, Frogspawner. The problem is that it is not a "the die roll dictates what happens" solution (and THAT would be a mind control) but a "the die roll dictates what options you have besides violence" solution.

You mean this...?

In our case, things could have been handled this way: the guards want the PCs to surrender their weapons. The PCs then attempt to argue with them with two goals:

a) persuade the guards that it would be dishonourable to surrender weapons and let them go with them voluntarily (Persuade/Orate/Etiquette/Status/Whatever)

determine if this is a trick to slaughter them once they are tied up (Insight)

If the party succeeds in a), the problem is solved: no disarming (it's the guards' problems now, as their boss will probably get angry). If the party succeeds in , most players would agree to lay down their weapons, as the risk is reduced. If the party tries a) but fails, they still have the option to fight: however, your average player is much more likely to give up violence as an option once he has been given a fair, objective chance to talk himself out of trouble.

I'm afraid I don't find it convincing, and don't think it really addresses the 'impasse' problem.

Because the problem is only solved if the players succeed at (a), i.e. make their Persuade/Whatever rolls. But that's obvious - in the example, we can presume they already tried that (and failed).

And success at ( doesn't matter. No matter how much Insight the players get into how little these Bad Guy Lawmen want to hurt them, they still won't want to surrender to them. For plenty of reasons: 1) They know they did it! And when the Lawmen find out...; 2) The Lawmen's Boss may later decide he DOES want to hurt them; 3) They totally lose control of their fate - and they're probably playing this game to have such control; 4) Shooting bad guys is what they want to do - why not these bad guys, now? So I don't believe the players would give up their weapons. The risk to them isn't reduced by Insight, and failing a Fast Talk (no matter how long a procedure is involved) isn't going to convince them either, IMHO.

That example isn't an example of the problem being solved at all...

I'd like to ask you whether you've read this thread, though. ... So, frogspawner, who's taking control of what characters;D?

Yep, I have. Er, the GM would be taking control of the characters in EvilSchemer's example.

I'm not convinced by the assertion "There is no ... forcing players to change their minds", you see?

So I asked for an example - and I've yet to see one.

Oh, I get it - THAT's what 'pushing product' looks like...

To resolve bits of RP that've got intractable/boring for the players, I'd have thought a quick Fast Talk or Oratory or CHAx5 would be enough. Succeed and they get away - Fail and, well... violence is always an option.

More involved 'Social Interaction' mechanics don't sound convincing to me. Basically just more fluff to cover up the bottom line when the players fail their rolls: the GM takes control of the characters away from the players. That's a bad thing.

Particularly in the example given - where I think the players were right to expect bad things if they surrendered (including, very likely, execution). They were daft to get them selves in that situation though - the murderer (Dave?) was actually smarter - he ran away and hid!

Certainly, a co-incidental Ninja Attack would be an alternative to get them out of trouble. But you can only use that maybe once or it gets silly (and even then players like Dave may - justifiably - object to such 'GM Fiat'). Best to solve the problem properly, rather than avoid or cover it up.

I think the key is to treat the player-characters as individuals, not a group. In that stand-off, single-out the most belligerent(the one giving the most lip, or even just with the lowest CHA!) - and make it clear HE will die if he doesn't surrender. And if he doesn't - make it happen, by the 'lawmen' all shooting him until he is very obviously dead. And so on. It doesn't have to be a TPK unless the players choose it to be.

I don't know those systems, but don't think a mechanism that gets characters to surrender when their players don't want them to is possible. An example, please?

Unfortunately, this thread somehow became about the incident that inspired my thinking about stand-offs, not how to handle intractable non-violent (but with the implication of possible violence) stand-offs more in general... So my first post was a mechanical way of ending the argument and determining who the hell goes through the door first.

Not sure any mechanism would help. Ultimately, it'd just dress-up the GM taking control of the characters and saying "...so you decide to do as they say" - which the players would still be completely unwilling to do. And They do have a point. I think it is a roleplaying problem, rather than a rules problem. Your second post trumped the first by showing that bigger problem.