Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Khanwulf

  1. Bonus points if you run a few sessions of what is essentially Arthurian Squire High-School drama. Great for introducing "peer" named characters also as squires (or pages), whom they may bump into later.
  2. Thank you for alerting on this, and for making it a blog and not a podcast or video. I'm old-fashioned and like to read these. Completely. It will be done. --Khanwulf
  3. Ok, however which characteristic is the target for that chaste inspiration? I mean you're not rolling chaste for the PJ's action choice, but to inspire something else? Just curious how it's worked as I once inadvertently did something similar with a directed list trait... Before rereading on it.
  4. I don't have PV, but see what maneuvers are possible. I have a house one that reduces the number of opponents who can engage. Something that removes or reduces shield impact, or that trips--both when fighting defensively, could be handy. Likewise, you idea of trading skill for reduced armor based on the target's armor penalty is interesting. But the issue with all of these is that armor dex penalties are stiff and make it unlikely to pass a roll, so one won't be attempted unless knights are unarmored. This counter-intuitive result is what canned the double-feint in KAP. Maybe DEX can be treated as more of point pool, and tradeoffs be tested with a weapons roll if total dex (including armor penalties) is high enough?
  5. Ok so the net result is that raises increase the floor and the assumption is that there is enough skill use to justify holding a skill level even if play does not call for increase. That's fair. I'm being pedantic so it can be written up for individuals not reading threads and avoid provoking "arbitrary checks". All in all there seems good reason to play a "dex monkey" type now, even without special maneuvers that tend to go with the trope. That and the "face".
  6. The other piece of information, danced around by Atgxtg in his comment, is that Vortigern succeeded in bending the ears of the Pictish bodyguard to Constans such that they thought they and everyone else would be better off with Constans dead and Vortigern in charge. Now Picts are not alien to the concept of the oath, or they would not have been selected as bodyguards, so there must have been some foundation for them--in close proximity to Constans--to conclude that he did not fit at least their view of the king, and Vortigern was better. It had to be subtle enough of a manipulation, as well, that Vortigern could act all shocked afterwards and quickly have the treacherous Picts executed. The flight of Ambrosius and Uther could have been prudence by their caretaker more than necessity ahead of Vortigern's blades--we don't know for sure. This assumes, by the way, that Vortigern actually did attempt to manipulate the Picts toward his ends (which is a given in most accounts, but need not be in your KAP). He could have simply been a good chancellor and expressed the king's generosity toward the bodyguards, only to be misunderstood as they hatched their own plot. One thing we have to acknowledge from the sources is that Ambrosius had very good PR. He succeeded in smearing Vortigern's name so thoroughly ahead of his return to Britain that we still do not know what the man was actually named! Only in areas that look like Vortigern's ancestral lands do we see alternate treatments that hold him up as a competent and wise leader. Yet: he was selected as the High King by the other nobles, and if they truly thought him weak or smarmy they would have thrust themselves (or Cunedda) forward as alternative candidates. So... there is a LOT that a GM can do to craft their picture of these characters. YPWV. --Khanwulf
  7. @Hzark10 in another thread you permit Traits and Passions to inspire. As in, be the source stat for checking if inspiration occurs, yes? That's... different, since Passions are normally the only source of inspiration. Now applying the bonus: that's less of a significant choice. But how have you found sourcing inspiration to go in playing using a trait-based approach? (Assuming I understand correctly.) --Khanwulf
  8. Looks feasible. So stat raises after character creation do not raise skills? I'm fine with that. Also the pick of one skill to 15 remains? It's likely that more players will decide to raise a secondary skill using that choice, especially if they choose to go with higher DEX, planning on putting the first few years' skill points into weaponry. A viable approach. --Khanwulf
  9. Personally I dislike telling players "you should have planned better". This, by someone who plans excessively. It's just not realistic, and a given player doesn't need to hurdle of understanding mechanics intimately to jump into Arthurian legend. It needs to be accessible. No they don't, but speaking as someone getting older--you do get slower and that makes a difference. I'm ok with a lowering of an attribute through age/wounds to cause a decrease in skill, assuming that the relationship with the skill is linearly established at start. As it is here. No sir. Explaining to a player is not the answer. And let's please acknowledge that the objective is to change the "wastage" of points into DEX, APP or whatever. An investment in an attribute should be valuable on its face, with the benefits clear and measurable even if not always equal. Yes but what is it tough? Because if your DEX and APP drop too far you become bedridden and unplayable? Not sufficient--that happens to STR and SIZ and CON with much more direct impact on knightly effectiveness. I'm willing to build-in reasons why you don't want to lose *any* attribute. And after posting I realized that PV uses Presence as an actual stat name. I'm using it generically. It is literally personal magnetism through appearance, in KAP. Only because STR is already core to knightly skills in the form of critical derived attributes like damage. Again, my point at least is to holistically examine stat impact. Also, if weapon skills are DEX-based, yet damage is STR-based, then you already have additional attributes built-in to the equation. Yes, we have APP, DEX, CON and knowledge, where Greg specifically structured KAP to remove the mental attributes and assign them to the player. They are modeled through skills that deal with memory, domain knowledge and reasoning. Then they should be sinking the skill points that they would otherwise spend on Orate, into Recognize. With this like of arrangement there will be a higher base level for courtly skills and I'm quite OK asking a specialist to raise up other skills that are important but more knowledge-based through yearly training. There needs to be balance. Agreed, it needs to be tested--or at least modeled with several cases both expected and extreme. I'm opposed to incorporating Traits into the base of skills, as they are supposed to be personality. --Khanwulf
  10. Say: childbirth table is STR-based and survival is CON-based?
  11. I'm not following the conversion thread here, but what I was referring to is the situation where you have, say, 20 DEX at start: (selecting DEX for sake of example, could be APP) 1. Your base dagger skill is 10. You raise it one (1) point during play. It is 11. 2. Your raise DEX two more points. It is 22. Your base dagger skill now equals the raise and the raise is wiped out. 3. You take a mortal wound and lose 4 points of DEX. Your base dagger skill drops two points. Is it now 9. Since your raise was "lost" your dagger skill is 9. --Or should it be 10? There are two problems from a player's perspective with this scenario, which is not as unlikely as you might think. First, the player will expect that when DEX goes up and the base increases it will raise the boat, not overwrite the skill increase. Second, if there is a drop he will expect the skill investment to return. A side point: clearly damage to DEX is going to be something PK anguish over, as it will hit ALL weapon skills and make knights slower and troubled. This is... actually realistic and I like it! On to @Atgxtg's table of skills: let me make a few suggestions. I've marked my modifications in red. Ok, so basically APP is your presence stat. An individual with high APP will do better in social activities because people will pay more attention to how they feel about being around them than the technical results of, say, the dance or game. CON is for endurance and focus, where getting tired would cause loss of focus. Swimming is an endurance activity--or STR, but I don't think any skill should be STR-based. DEX is fine, except playing instruments should be in it. I could see Play as APP, but technical skill is actually more important when you're trying to fill a room of knights with something worthwhile from your instrument. Added Industry I'm fine with the rest of the skill being no-attribute. These are knowledge-based by and large. I've added Battle and Siege here as they were missing and should not be DEX-based. Thoughts? --Khanwulf
  12. Ok, I get it: so APP and DEX create a floor value for the skills, meaning that the most efficient use of points is in raising them early before checks and training are applied. Are applied training points tracked separately from the skill base? So if a wound kicks in training keeps soil from dropping as much? Oh and: "boys will laugh at girls when they're not funny". Quite sure what's happening is that physical characteristics are covering for relative lack of skill.
  13. Ok, so then that's a benefit to raising APP, per the other discussion. And DEX, which is also fine. Players can know that they may bump up the DEX or APP skills on every even number. You may end up with situations, however, where a player puts 1d6+1 training points in, and then bumps the attribute and sends the skill to 16--is that a problem? Why don't you do up a table, and then the different cultures could be just assigned modifiers of +/-1 or 2 based on what they are good at, or not.
  14. I'm aware of that, and am for the same reason very disinclined on making the sword weaker. Regardless of the role of the knight as a lance-charging tank, the sword is their iconic symbol and I'm not going to anger the spirits of the Sarmatians by opposing that. It might be enough to provide cover effects to a shieldwall. Once knights wore plate you were not going to injure them short of hitting them really hard at one point (spear, on a charge), breaking the plate (hammers), doing enough blunt-force trauma armor didn't matter (maces), or controlling them long enough to find weak spots (grappling + dagger). Even their helms were shaped to repel arrows. Prior to plate, chain needed either blunt force or a very short point to catch the riveted links and force them sharply apart. Swords needed to be sharp and pointy to do real work, but have always been fantastic when the opponents are unarmored or lightly armored (ie. Napoleonic lancers), or blows could be delivered with skill toward vulnerable bits (ie. by professional warriors--knights). So spear men in KAP could... carry their spears 2H and use them to avoid being reflexively penalized during a cavalry charge (per the infantry square/line), and then switch to 1H use in a wall. That's... theoretical flexibility, since actually organizing either tactic would happen only once/battle unless the troops are highly disciplined professionals. Is there anything else that can be provided to sword that would better illustrate their utility rather than having them break everything in sight? On that note, do you have evidence from Greg's comments or the sources why that was selected as sword's particular niche? It has such a detrimental effect on the value of all other weapons I think there must be a more substantial underlying reason. I think the more playtime is spent before Boy King, the more the setting tries to feel like a post-Roman Britain historical simulation. That's part of the problem. Then you get through the Anarchy and civil wars and people settle down and have enough time and margin to be chivarlic. When KAP was designed it started with Boy King, and has been extended backwards from there. Now the early knights are "elite mounted warriors" and Ambrosius brings the stirrup to Britain! On spear/lance skill: Cymrics get spear expertise that does exactly that--conflate the two. Every other culture has to pay double and isn't going to be using spears unless they are trumped-up warriors (Picts and Saxons maybe). On the note of Saxons, they ride but fight on foot until after Badon, when Arthur civilizes them and forces their sons to behave like knights (learning to use lances, presumably). If you conflate the two skills then you remove BoK&L's contribution to Cymric super-power. (This may or may not be a problem.) Ok, do not want to create a Roman armaments argument. The point was that there is utility in the dagger as a quick-draw item that would get it used more. As is, why pull it out when you could search around and re-arm with a more substantial weapon? So we're agreed, that if used in grapple is halves armor, and it may be readied for free. Grappling in general is as undignified as brawling, and I think you could say that if you are engaged in it you may not split your skill to defend from others who may be attempting to relieve their comrade. That right there would hurt enough to make it not the first choice tactic. --Khanwulf
  15. This ended up in another thread and really deserves its own, as weapons treatment in KAP is another of the sore points: Text by @Atgxtg No, but feel free to start one. Daggers and Spears could use a little love. The problem is a 1H spear doesn't have a reach advantage, becuase you generally have to choke up on the grip. A 2H spear would. I was watching some reenactments on youtube, one in particular by Lindybeige where he ran dozens of spear vs sword tests and based on his results (which are only one sample, but most of the other experienced reenact ors no youtube seem to have a similar option): 2H Spear vs Sword is a big advantage for the spear- the spear won every match, and this was with reenactors who spent little time with a spear and some time with a sword.. is much more even. In fact the advantage shifted to the sword, since the swordsman could use his shield to push the spear out of the way while stepping in to finish the job. Formation fighting that is a group of guys with 1H Spear & Shield vs another group with Sword and Shield favored the spearmen again, as the spearmen could cover each over and help each other out. I did up some tables with reflexive modifiers that seemed to fit with the sample data, but am hesitant to use it in play, as it would tend to favor footmen with greatspears over mounted knights with swords. So like the longbow, schiltron, Swiss pikemen, and firearms it is probably best glossed over and ignored until the last few years of the campaign. I can did it up and post it. The modifiers are significant, based on the data, and that's assuming that the sowrdmen and spearmen were equally skilled, when in fact the swordmen were more skiled (so the modifiers would be higher) . One big problem IMO is the sword breaking non-swords on a tie. It's fine normally, but since a critical =20 then a Swordman with a 25 skill fighting someone with a non-sword with a 25 skill means a lot more broken weapons, as all those critical become ties and broken weapons. I'd do something similar but probably only increase the normal shield bonus (-5) up to -7 as there is only a partial overlap of shields and coverage. *End Atgxtg* Ok, so while the formatting is broken above, let me elaborate a bit. First, philosophically I'd rather modify KAP as little as possible. I've tried injecting complex additional systems into it and have not liked the results. KAP is streamlined and fast and intended to take care of everything that knights care about, well. But: the incentives distort things more than a tad, and this thread is to discuss fixes to that. Backing through things in no particular order: (#3) Non-sword weapons should not break on fumble--we've discussed this before. The fix is to make them break on the much less-likely combination of fumble+crit. This moves the probability from 1/20 to 1/400, though as opponent's skill increases the probability slides more toward 1/20. (#4) Shields have a certain value because of their size and the assumption that their user is interposing the shield actively. A shieldwall is an intentionally dense overlapping of shields in order to remove opening for attack. The shield value is overcome by axes, which is a combination of their "reach around" effect and intent on splintering shields. Cover in KAP is for interposing objects to reduce the opening for attack. A shield wall seems to me to be more of an effort to create cover in the field, in combination with a bunch of pointy things directed at the enemy. From what we know of reenactments and history, shield walls were a deuce to break and took a lot of time in shoving and poking--or very little if you could find a weak point and exploit it. This again looks more like cover to me than a higher shield value, as cover flat reduces the probability that the enemy will land a hit and thus makes their efforts more ineffectual, while shield just means the target doesn't get hurt so bad. A group of trained warriors using a shieldwall (ala Romans) could have cover up to -10, but the principle is simple enough that peasants can do it: bunch up and keep your shield in place! (#1) Daggers don't need a lot of attention. They need to be specifically useful under the circumstances where they would be used. In this case KAP has already provided grappling as their point to shine, so my suggestion simply ensures they have an effect that overcomes armor. It also means dagger skill could be used instead of a DEX check after initiating a grapple (which, unfortunately, makes DEX less useful again). Dagger a free readiness action means that you don't have to be unarmed or take the re-arming penalty so long as you carry a dagger, so it's useful in a pinch. Further, if you're a legionnaire, you can ready your gladius (dagger) immediately after throwing pilum. So it makes sense to arm your legion shieldwall with short swords. (#2) Spears. Spears have been humanity's main battlefield weapon up until the proliferation of gunpowder. Swords have been a popular backup. Why? Because spears give reach, play well in shield walls, have duel hunting purposes, are cheap, and have lovely armor-penetrating points. We still use them as bayonets. So KAP really should reflect some of these basic reasons. Knights used spears/lances for as long as they could, and then switched to backup weapons when the spear became unfeasible. Footmen carried spears primarily and a variety of cheap backup weapons. Spear and shield is not as effective as two-handed spear at range, true. But it still provides the opportunity to gain reach while also using a shieldwall. I could see applying reach the first round if used 2-handed, and not if one-handed, such that there would be a decision on whether to haft-up the spear and go with more protection, or stick it out there and aim to keep your opponent at range. That said, KAP applies the +5 situational bonus even to attacking opponents who fall down (and it's reflexive), so I'm not uncomfortable with what I've proposed above. All this said, the real danger during a spearfight is not wounding from the fellow in front of you, it's their bud with a spear ganking you from the side (at range) when you didn't assign a roll to them. --Khanwulf
  16. I've seen the same videos, observed reenactments myself, and generally read literature by folks who've put their bread-and-butter into writing on it. I think we're in the same place you and I, but differ on how fiddly to make a correction to KAP's overly-generalized approach to the weapons. I'll make a thread for this.
  17. Was thinking about this on the way in today. Spear has been so common a weapon because it is effective in a formation and can keep an opponent out of range. It's also cheap. Daggers have been backup weapons because they are easier to carry and employ during a grapple, effectively. They are also narrow enough to force the point between chain links even if you can't find a softer chink. So, here are a few potential fixes, though this is not really the thread for it: 1. Daggers may be employed as a weapon/skill during a successful grapple [this is core rules], and if so halves opponent armor values; use Dagger skill instead of DEX. (Grappling may also prevents shield use--this is unclear.) A dagger may be readied and used to attack the same round at no penalty. 2. Spears receive a reach bonus (+5) on the first round of combat or when employed in formation (one or more allies on each of the right and left), so long as the opponent is not also employing a spear/polearm. [There is no reflexive penalty because the assumption is that the opponent will attempt to get in under the spear and attack with full value. He's just more likely to get hurt and if he does then that means his attack was stopped. The proper sequence is to fight defensively the first round against a spearman while closing in and then destroy him round 2. If he's in formation that won't work however--just bring your own spears. The spearman OTOH will prefer to fight one round, and on the second round disengage, then reengage round 3.] Note that spears were very effective versus chain because they could get into the links in ways that swords found harder; swords were more effective on light armor, and always a good backup weapon.] 3. All weapons are dropped on a fumble. A spear, axe, polearm or mace fumble on the same round in which the opponent scores a critical results in a broken weapon. Frequently swords, maces and axes are secured to the knight with a lanyard and may be retrieved the next round with a reflexive penalty (+5/-5). Spears and polearms fumbled are at the mercy of the combat and may be more easily prevented from rearming--especially if the owner is ahorse. [This reduces the breakage rate to 1 in 400 for regular combatants.] Edit 4. Combatants in a shieldwall formation (close shield use, one or more allies on both right and left) receive cover (-5) to attempts to attack them. --Khanwulf
  18. Ok, ok. Guys both of you have valid perspectives: Atgxtg is concerned about marginal utility and Morien the impact of long-term value on character balance. Both of these are important. My suggestion is to consider a situation where starting characters have no skill bonus over BoK&L, but APP affects max skill and learning rate as well as skill use glory and other social battle mechanics. This is still a conservative approach as young characters well need to put effort into their skills without automatically being awesome, yet they can definitely achieve awesome more easily that Sir Lumpy over yon. Skills like fashion and recognise become like siege and battle in the social arena, and we can untangle how that works once there's some comity on the measures APP enjoys. Fair?
  19. For b. I think you mean APP/2+10. But very well, so the preferred idea is to push the benefits into chargen, glory gain from skill use and a compartmentalized court system. APP should, like size, cease to improve aside from glory points after 21. That's fair. However what benefit is there to raising APP after chargen? Because if you start in squire-land you still have growing to do and will gain considerably less for you attribute to skill conversion. It seems the investment appeal is rather lower. Also, making court difficulty easier is great except when you're not dealing with "court", but with a specific individual and their particular skills; that's the time you really want your skill to shine and solve the problem--whatever it is. Maybe it's not a problem, if there is a means to use skills to loop back and trigger trait checks versus APP or otherwise use it as a manipulation tool. Just pondering here... It's been a long week.
  20. Morien you're exploring the starting skills issue as well as the skill training caps/rate in this. Would you do me the favor of breaking down how you would suggest treating the three elements of skill training caps? I'm not following your evaluation. We're close to some very specific treatment here and what do you recommend?
  21. Ok. Let's work with this: assume that each court PKs are interacting with has a Court Intensity score based on its standing. Also assume there is a Court Size score, indicating how many glorious individuals there are within a given court. Let's say that Court Intensity is based on the the average glory across those Court Size individuals, and this derives both a base difficulty and a modifier for your Rival directed trait (directed toward the Court Intensity). Leave court attributes for now.... But we can assume that there are abstracted opponents in any court situation where one is not explicitly defined by the GM. I've not made any suggestions regarding default skill values. But yes, generally I'd suggest basing weapons off DEX and courtly skills off APP, then modifying base by culture. I'm also thinking quite directly about the edge case of high APP, considering that a PL who chooses to go the "face" route is going to pump that attribute and maximize their advantages. Meanwhile, any mechanics needs to be reasonable enough at smaller scale that they have an effect... otherwise you're putting a lot of effort into "epic play" without making getting there worthwhile. (Specifically I'm quite sure that expanding APP mechanics will cause one player of mine to giggle madly while engineering an edge case extreme enough to cause eyebleed; there's a history with it.) So what do you do? How equivalent within their realms are a character with stupendous weapon skills (common PK goal) versus a character with stupendous face skills? (Less common.) We know how to throw challenges at the former--KAP is designed around that, but less so around the latter. If Eliwlod son of Madog son of Uthur, one of the "Three Golden-Tongued Knights" shows up with his crit-happy orate skill, "there [is] neither king nor lord to whom [he] came who did not listen to them; and whatever quest [he] sought, they wished for and obtained it, either willingly or unwillingly." What do you do? You haul out Gwalchmai son of Llew son of Cynfarch, or Drudwas son of Tryffin because they have comparable skill. I'm just drawing from the Aurthian Triads for examples. Point is that the tools are think for combat resolutions at high skills, and thin for courtly "combat". That's why giving flat bonuses from high APP is scary (that and it's mechanically overpowered). I'm fond of the direction suggested today: of permitting the Player to invest in courtly skills more easily, but still requiring that investment. --Khanwulf
  22. We're close enough to having a set of comprehensive modifications to apply to the APP/courtly game, if GMs wish to use it. There's good value to be had, methinks.
  23. [Letter reference codes added.] A. Excellent idea: Rival(<name>/<court>) could represent a relationship that is definitely in professional conflict but not at the level of personal hatred. This would work for knights as well. Not as a passion, because of inspiration mechanics, but as a directed trait? So you could have directed traits of "Rival(Salisbury): 15", "Rival(Sarum): 22" and "Rival(Camelot): 11". If you are in Salisbury you'll have to deal with your 15-point rival. If you go to Sarum you get both the 15 and 22-point ones, but if you go to Camelot you only have to put up with the 11. Unless your other rivals also travel, which is possible. Note that if you have a mutual "Hatred(<that Sarum female dog>): 9" then Rival would add to it...? Am unsure here how best to make it work. Maybe just replace Rival with Hatred if it comes to that, as Amor flips to Love. B. I know it's relatively straightforward to work out, however I still take issue with giving people skill bonuses from glory. There's something functionally wrong with that and it makes for a constant battle to track who is involved in the scene, what their glory totals should be, and adjust rolls accordingly. Glory already contributes its bonus point and provides social placement status, so it really doesn't need to muddy the waters further. YPMV. C. Yeah but I wanted to show how the base evolved. Result is the same. D. Mentioned regarding DEX perhaps? Also in the thread. The three options do different things: 1st makes it easier to advance quickly through training, 2nd makes the training cap higher, and 3rd (affecting end-of-year improvement rolls) makes improvement through use easier. All of them facilitate skill scores higher than 20, by moving the point outward when the character is forced to stop spending yearly trains and start investing only glory awards. Being able to double-dip with usage improvement checks makes the rate faster--potentially--but again a point is reached where a 20 is needed to advance through use. If it's too easy for a moderately attractive character to advance courtly skill through use, then it can be adjusted. I've been considering for a long time using a similar mechanic for curse on a PK once he violates faerie custom (I think this is going to be inevitable); he'll get a -10 to Reckless improvement rolls during Winter phases.... --Khanwulf
  24. There is quite a bit here to respond to, and @Atgxtg and @Morien are already far down the road of my own thinking. Let me jump lightly between points: 1. Glory for courtly skill use equal to APP instead of flat 10 is one of the simplest and most effective houserules and was floating around the Nocturnal forums for some time. I believe Morien originated it, but could well be mistaken. It is very high on my suggested fixes points, as it also penalizes lightly the use of APP as a dump stat. 2. Extra math is bad. Seek to avoid it whenever possible. (Note that I've been suggesting math for APP's effect on skills, but we can avoid that....) 3. Use of courtly skills should be structured as opposed checks most of the time. This creates the same type of dynamic as found in combat, and enables looking at bonuses and penalties in similar ways. For example, if you are attempting to impress the king, then you are doing so at the expense of someone else impressing him--this is a conflict that can be resolved, assuming you (GM) quickly identify the other party and their skill conditions. It will be rare to be making an unopposed skill check, and even then probably rolling the two-d10 method is appropriate, or assigning environment factors a target strength (the "doom and gloom" over your troops is skill 20 at demoralizing, roll opposed orate). 4. Atgxtg's suggestion of treating glory and dress/jewelry as superior positioning is spot on. You also take the idea to the logical conclusion by asking "what is the relative difference here" in glory. The same can be used for other social preparations: if you are going into social (influence) battle, you dress and prepare accordingly, rehearsing delivery of certain points if you can, and ensuring your outfit is appropriate to the venue and guests. Dressing too much can be as bad as too little. So within the game this can be arbitrated through skill checks by the staff, the choices of the PK/PL/NPC, and the results of rolls during the scene(s); result should be in bonuses to courtly skill checks within a range: "superior positioning" and "superior troops". You would need to understand what the dress code is for the court/event you are going to attend. This comes from staff and experience, but may also use intrigue especially as the periods advance and the social festivities become more jaded and decadent (naked bathing dinners, anyone?). 5. Glory needs to be removed from the skill equation except for two things: use of recognize, and determining who has priority of place. Glory should continue to provide the +1 to other's chance to recognize you per 1000. Whomever has the most glory present naturally has precedent to act first in speaking or whatnot. However if Gawain has a 3 in orate, everyone will let him speak first but they will not necessarily be impressed--no matter how polite the applause is while quickly shifting on. Gawain--to follow the example further--speaks well because he is a courteous knight who dumped skill points into being so. He's glorious because he is courteous, not courteous because he's glorious. Short version: don't give a social skill bonus from glory. If you disagree, then doing math to figure out who has higher glory and how much, and using that as the skill modifier, would do. 6. I very, very much like Atgxtg's suggestion of using APP to modify the natural skill cap. This solves a lot of problems and reduces the math to the Winter phase, where it belongs. There are three points where this could be applied: a) The "skill up to 15" point allocation of 1d6 skill points. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (15) or (15+APP-10)", which would effectively add APP over 10 to the "easy" skill point buy range. If you want to make low APP a penalty, then use: "courtly skill up to (15+APP-10)", which will create a skill range from 7 (APP 10) to 15 (APP 10 average). b) The "skill up to 20" point allocation of 1 skill point. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (20) or (APP)". Or if you want low APP to be a penalty: (20+APP-10). c) A bonus/penalty to the check for skill advancement. This could be done as "roll skill with a modifier of (+10-APP)". The result would be a greater tendency for higher-APP characters to "fail" the end-of-year roll and gain a free point in checked skills. They will naturally advance faster, and spend less effort sinking training points into courtly skills that come "easy" to them thanks to natural gifts. Personally I'd probably do all three. 7. You could substitute DEX for APP and apply the same logic to weapon skills. --Khanwulf
  25. Generally, the opinion has been that the whole "pretty aura" thing has to go. It really shouldn't be in there at all, and can be roll-played out if needed. GM: "You see the hawtest lady you've ever seen." PK: Hawt or haut? GM: Hawt. She would be a royal tumble for sure. Roll Lustful for how appealing this thought is.... PK: Sounds fair--*dice* That'd be enough. And then maybe hand out directed traits and Amor if a PK puts their heart on it. But as Atgxtg points out, the administrative task of tracking who has met the PL, what their rolls were and etc. is way, WAY too much. Now. If you have a pretty lady who wants to bend mythic history to their whim, and the player who's driving that decision, then by all means let them. But warn that in doing so they have set themselves against currents of fate that are strong enough to rip the greatest heroes of the age up by their roots and fling an age of man's glory into an echo of story and song. You might make Mordred "nice", but he's still going to be standing on the field at Camlann, flustered at his uncle and some snake of a man who advised him Arthur was dead. Back to APP: I think overall I'd prefer the (APP-11)/2 calculation, as that results in a +10 bonus at 30 APP. Equivalent to an all-out attack bonus. Then 40 APP is +15, equivalent to an all-out attack from horseback. You need guidelines for how APP and courtly skills can be used to manipulate others (men and women) and what happens if it's overdone. The sources have incidents where knights are overcome by beauty or whatnot, but that's usually a result of a passion that they developed for someone. If you hand the reins to the ladies, and say "do something in order build a amor in yon knight." Then you've returned agency to the women and established a relationship that could be resisted if desired. (Dinadan had none of all this, IIRC.) --Khanwulf
  • Create New...