Jump to content

Khanwulf

Member
  • Posts

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Khanwulf

  1. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. [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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. That's what I was getting at as well. However I do get concerned about the effect of that +1/point over 15 from characters with very high APP scores--the "face" PK or lady, or how even NPLs that approach Guen and Ygraine can crush everyone without trying using courtly skills. Maybe it's not a big deal if you make the real tests into opposed checks? As is done in combat? Mmmm. Social combat.... --Khanwulf
  8. a) At the Winter phase, for ever 1,000 glory earned that year, receive as a bonus the greater of (0 or (APP - 10) x 10) glory. b) For skill successes, use APP as the base glory award, modified normally. c) For occasions in which your skill interactions may employ appearance as part of their presentation, take a modifier of (APP-11)/2 to skill check. [This one will cause more criticals on social rolls, leading to higher glory awards for skill successes.] Might that all help? --Khanwulf
  9. Right. And even once Sir Potato ditches the couch and goes out sending dragon-heads back in her name he'll need to dedicate a good chunk of his catch-up glory to her in order to top Sir Extraordinary's passive contribution (500/year) while standing at one of the four corners of Arthur's bed. By the way, I agree that passive APP increases to Glory awards are not such a fantastic idea when you have enough sources available. Though the example Sir Extraordinary's glory total would put him among perhaps a dozen personages in the entire Arthurian arc.
  10. That's what's happening. The Lady gets either an amount based on how glorious her Amor is, or a portion (up to 50%) of his glory that he dedicates to her. The reason for the passive glory amount is to represent how knights who have already done great deeds are attractive Amor partners, even if they have other obligations that keep them from adventuring so much. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the emphasis however, and no one cares that you carry on with Lancelot if he's more Homesalot these days.
  11. Right, so in summary from @Hzark10 and @Atgxtg: 1. Wife gains 10 glory per 1000 that her husband has at the end of the year (winter phase) 2. If husband's total glory is less than wife's, husband gains 10 glory per year per 1000 wife has at end of year (winter phase). 2.b A husband marrying up will have role-playing pressure on their traits to either adopt a subservient attitude in the relationship, or excel. This could be modeled through checks annually in intrigue (to see if the gossip is noticed), then Love(Family), Love(spouse), Pride, Energetic, and etc. Part of it comes down to how the wife treats the husband as well: though the church doesn't suggest love or hate as a family motivation, they are supposed to be confidants and advisers to each other. 3. Use Greg's life event glory awards for wives. These are probably not subject to the 1000/event cap, by inference. 4. Daughters gain the higher of 1/10th mother's glory or 1/10th father's glory at marriage. Sons gain 1/10th father's glory at knighting or marriage--whichever happens first. There should be a determination if these awards are subject to the 1000/event cap. [Note: I believe this is already in Greg's page on wife glory.] 5. Stewardship/industry rolls by wives that result in better-than-expected results are stocked away by wives for their use, unless the husband finds out and objects/seizes it. Doing so will result in trait checks and other consequences. This is along the lines of the traditional "butter and eggs money" that the woman made from producing such household items; the man raiding same was/is considered a low kind of scoundrel. 6. You could still do a series of checks at different points in the year to determine if the wife wants more money, how successful she is at wheedling some out of her husband, and what the consequences are of that. For both of them. The key factor is how Love(Family) and Love(Spouse) are affected, the development of any suspicious, generous and greedy directed traits and etc. 7. A widow continues to receive annual glory (per #1) from her late husband's final total until either her own glory surpasses his or she remarries. 8. A Lady may engage in Amor with a knight. She gains 1/10th of his glory total per year so long as the relationship continues. Multiple men may ascribe Amor to a single Lady, however only the most glorious will contribute annual glory to her total: determine which by who has the higher of a) total glory or b) glory for deeds during the year, dedicated to the Lady (up to 50% of glory awards to the knight). 8.b An intimate relationship between a knight and a Lady is considered an Amor for this purpose. 8.c A knight in Amor with a Lady gains glory per year equal to the higher of [base value--100?] or 1/10th Lady's glory, so long as their relationship contributes glory to her. A knight may dedicate glory from his deeds to his Lady amor, of up to 50% of his personal awards, summed at year-end. 8.d A knight in Amor decreases the Lady's RF over time, according to the system that I'll not attempt to overhaul at this time. Should the RF fall far enough, both will need to make choices on whether to advance their relationship or restart it (purposefully focusing on other individuals, discontinuing amor, or etc.). Regardless, hitting an inflection point is a cause for gossip as it results in behavioral changes for both knight and lady that watchers notice. 8.e A wife may not be the target of her husband's Fine Amor. Comments? This should result in plenty of courtly glory going around and a lot of incentives for conflict. --Khanwulf
  12. Bolded that bit: please elaborate. Among other things I thought Greg's approach ties the wife quite firmly into the family for the long haul. At least as much as the knight is. Both enjoy certain inheritance privileges, etc. from their station. Definitely agree that there needs to be some mechanic for how spending decisions affects relationships. The main point of contention in modern marriages comes from differences on money (use, income, jobs, etc.), and I see no reason why this would be different back then. (The other point of contention is usually attention to/from the opposite sex, of course.) Now technically the social order gives control of the estate to whomever it is gifted/granted to: the knight; they make the financial decisions and the wife bends his ear, but for day-to-day management the wife is the one taking the budget and directing the staff. There's an automatic conflict created, as the tendency for the wife will be to expand that management to the entirety of available income, and plan out how she wants to use it (or... not plan). This will go double if she feels she's not getting her "due" in attention and generosity (gifts, etc.). On Glory income: let's say the wife gets 1/10th the income of her husband, and a lady involved in fine amor gets glory (up to half) dedicated to her from the knight who awards her the most at the end of the year. So the optimal strategy is to have lots of babies to wed off later, a valiant and energetic husband, and at least one chivalrous knight in amor feeding plenty of glory in. The risk should be that the knight in amor is also working down the RF table and the lady might find herself falling out of the "game" and into more genuine affection--a risk that can bring righteous wrath, even if her play hasn't attracted jealousy already. Next: Backwash glory from the wife to the knight? I'm not for this, really. The social stations are well-enough defined and I don't think the knight needs to have more sources of glory from which to draw. That said, if they marry a lady who is more glorious than themselves I could see them getting 1/10th of her glory income until he passes her. This could occur when a young knight marries an older woman, for example, and in addition to wedding glory exchanges might serve as an incentive to "marry up" as a knight. Beyond the huge... tracts of land, of course. --Khanwulf
  13. Well as it's portrayed in Greg's notes on glory for Ladies, they get a significant chunk of their lifetime glory awards from: 1) Marrying well (largest by FAR!) 2) Having kids. 3) Marrying their kids off well. 4) Seeing kids placed in positions (knighthood, church, etc.) So while the knight looks at the family as a source of heirs with which to fuel the family relationship with his lords and keep things a going concern, the wife's incentives are solely transactional for the accumulation of glory. What she *should* be doing with her spare time is ensuring the family is in good repute despite her husband's misadventures, and in a position to ensure advantageous marriages. Oh: and make lots of babies! What ladies need, I think, is a) a defined mechanism for creating and dealing with the kinds of gossip, intrigue and other political undercurrents that occur when every damn courtly lady is working toward a limited pool of glory awards. Knights have this for swinging swords, which is immediate and visceral, but court is strung out longer and more abstracted (mostly). They also may need b) a clearer representation of the benefits of glory to themselves--but maybe not, if the glory skill bonuses are consistently applied. And then of course, from the player's perspective he needs c) a further abstraction of the "wife's game" such that it happens at the table, quickly, and is not entirely under his control or exactly aligned with his (PK's) interests. Generally aligned, most of the time, but not exactly. Both the wife and the knight should be in communication and in agreement about the essentials: furthering the family position, but the details may differ. --Khanwulf Edit: to @Hzark10's point just above, I also agree that the wife should gain a small portion of the ongoing glory her husband receives--probably 1/10th of final yearly take, capped at 1000 per custom. I find it difficult to imagine the total respect (glory) of a queen would be so lagging just because she married her prince before he was crowned, for example. On the other hand, the inverse should not hold: the knight doesn't get glory for his wife's deeds. He's expected to marry his kids well and his social position revolves around being an oath-bound fighting man, not advancing the family--that's a secondary benefit from his position.
  14. The assumption I'm working from is that Goodwill can be monetized as L for this purpose, only, keeping in mind that the marginal value of one L decreases as you rise in rank. Thus, you could consider bribes as less effective on higher-ranking individuals (nobles, churchmen, etc.). I'd apply a divisor to bribe amounts in order to bring them down to parity, maybe: Knight - 1 G - 1L Baron - 1 G - 3L Earl - 1 G - 10L Duke - 1 G - 30L King - 1 G - 90L I'm just throwing numbers at the wall here, but this progression would create a +10 G effect from the bribe to Uther, plus whatever Goodwill she might have had or been able to generate from scraping up allies. (Something I forgot to mention.) Point being that if you want to influence a king, etc., you better bring what they value, which is usually personal and not material. We need a way to ensure that Goodwill is only applied from appropriate source. A knight is not going to influence the king unless he can bring to bear resources within the king's circle. @Morien I understand your use of "table" here and fully agree. I'd call them guidelines, but you're visualizing a table and that's fine. On APP and rumors: the point is that Sir Timberlake is pleasant to consider and repeating how he's done such-and-such great deed magnifies the impact of that success. It does not detract from Sir Homely and his new dragon-head trophy, which will be talked about in proportion to the difficulty of the lizard-extermination feat. This dynamic is clearly a thing that humans do. We really do pay more attention to the beautiful and listen to them over the plain. Similarly, dress and wealth displays do raise momentary regard and add weight to someone's presentation. It's real. It isn't remotely fair. But it's how both the sources and real life work. It's also not modeled in KAP, and that's why there's a discussion. What is the right weight? Dunno. --Khanwulf [Edit: to the challenge of the sources, some of the handsomest knights were also the most glorious, with exceptions for individuals who offset that by being exceptionally vigorous in their deeds or bearing--like Lancelot.]
  15. I like this. Bling that is bright enough to out-shine the fantastic beauty of such creatures is going to be expensive, indeed. And when done up someone like Guen is literally wearing a king's ransom in treasure. So the cost would be: (Base APP + tailoring and hairdo + jewelry + magic) x L = +1 jewelry point, repeat for each jewelry point. So you cannot layer on cheap stuff and then do the rest of your outfit and expect it to work. (It might backfire, in fact.) @Morien you talk about a request table, but that seems awfully random for what should be "my husband has helped you so please take that into consideration." Now... the magnitude of the consideration is open to rolls, and here's a possible way to roll with it: 1. Goodwill points are accumulated by succeeding in rolls over time, like Libra. 2. When attempting to influence a decision (either before or during the decision), you may bid Goodwill versus a target based on the magnitude of the modifier you're aiming for. Flat-out bribing the target as part of this can provide additional Goodwill, but how much will depend on the existing wealth of the target. (For example,: if you're attempting to bribe Uther into letting you manage the Duchy for your infant nephew you may need to sock him with 900+L, as occurs in BoU.) 3. Roll an appropriate opposed skill to make your case (Orate, Intrigue) versus Suspicious. A critical may provide bonus Goodwill to your request. 4. Roll Goodwill versus a target the GM decides according to a) magnitude of modifier sought + b) any countering Goodwill being used on this decision by competitors you may or may not be aware of. Failure wastes your effort and bribes but not the Goodwill you bid. Success provides the modifier sought and expends Goodwill. Critical success provides the modifier sought and returns half the bid Goodwill. Critical failure sacrifices bid Goodwill and inverts the bonus sought (making it a penalty). The target may also acquire a Suspicious direct trait toward you. 5. Make the roll against the decision table using the modifier acquired (such as marriage, etc.). On APP providing a bonus to glory income: if +10% per APP over 10 is too much, how much per point is appropriate? +5%? (Perhaps a Social Bonus (SB)derived attribute of APP/3 that adds to skills used where your appearance can be brought to bear, plus glory gain from skill use of +10%xSB?) --Khanwulf
  16. Agreed and I'm perfectly willing to redline-out the Amor aura in my Pendragon. It's annoying. Also, to Morien's point, I'm not convinced that glory inflation matters as much now as it did in earlier versions. Stat inflation from BoK&L and version updates have already resulted in a decrease in the value of the glory increase point, and if you compare stat investment as Morien has the situation is more stark. How many players want to choose between being pretty and dealing an additional 1d6 damage... 2d6 on a crit? Every time? Yeah... and this is why SIZ is its own problem. So APP needs to be brought up to the point where it can be at least held equal to STR or CON in value. Instead of a favors table, might we be able to reduce influence to a monetary value, then translate that monetary value over to other rolls? If you're angling for a position, what is the value of a bribe? If you want a marriage match, paying the Count affects it how much? Etc. So. Basically the lady (or knight) can accumulate cash and valuables, but also "goodwill" both specifically with someone and generally, and leverage that asset to accomplish something needed. At least up to a point. As we know you can only push a negotiation so far.... On the matter of APP bonuses from hairstyling, tailoring and jewelry (not magic stuff), I had a thought. What if the APP bonus degraded similar to how suits of clothes wear out? Only faster: 1/2 bonus value per year used. Or -1 bonus per event if you like. You can make a splash with your new bling, or outfit, but after being talked about people just accept that it's "you" and move on. So you need to re-spend for new jewelry, invest in a new stylist, get new clothes, etc. in order to keep up your "A" game at court. Because if you're collecting goodwill, others are too! --Khanwulf
  17. Very good points Morien, thank you for the follow-up. First: agreed on the mystical beauty aura--I'm inclined to ditch it entirely as unnecessary railroading. Interactions with the characters can and should drive passion creation, along with mechanics (as are being discussed here) around the flow and division of glory between knights and ladies in amor. Put that way, perhaps the real revolution of the Court of Love was in asking the men to "share". Before then the ladies got glory from hitting milestones, but not the relationship, per se. Guen (with Arthur's tacit support) codified how the courts would promulgate glory for upholding women through knightly deeds. Of course, as you and Atgxtg point out, doing so should be limited to whomever "wins" the contest for a given year (a cycle of courts). Lady1: "Have you heard of Sir BigLance? He slew 50 Saxons in her name!" Maidens: "Ooo!" Lady2: "What about Sir SlightlySmallerLance? Have we heard anything since the two giants in spring?" Maidens: "No and who cares!" Sir SSLance: "Hey now! It's not the size, it's how you use it!" ... I'm also in favor of overhauling the RF & Task system. And yes that needs to be another discussion, but they are inter-related. My off-hand opinion is that it is at once too easy to seduce a lady through the system and takes too long. The problem is focus: the system is there to model sanctioned seduction AND to model chaste relationships for the sake of generating glory. I think there needs to be a distinction in active objective--at least until someone changes their mind! Back to the amor "aura", however: perhaps the real benefit to it is not in lining up smitten admirers, but in dividing the courts on the ladies between those who react with jealousy (suspicion) versus admiration. The latter effectively creates armor versus intrigue based solely on passive appearance. So perhaps can hone in that and let the knights decide separately if they want to salute the lady's flag for the sake of glory? Instead of a check upon meeting, just note mentally if a given character has met the lady, and then when intrigue is used against her (or, him) penalize it by some amount based on APP >30? Similarly, intrigue bonus for using it against someone with very low APP? (Less than 10, since you're disabled if it drops below 5.) On the point of making social skills matter... maybe the influence game amounts to collecting modifiers to the final roll? Or, in collecting "damage" against a target result's "health"? It's more tracking, but you're doing court, so what do you expect? Just brainstorming at this point. --Khanwulf
  18. The assumption from the exchanges is that you don't get the effect attributed to Guen and Ygraine in the books unless you can a) crank APP to 40+, at which point you've broken the dice system and thereby gain the special bonus. Or, b) you apply your APP to one poor sot in conjunction with skills, and say: succeed in the skill roll and crit your APP roll. At that point your smitten subject needs to roll per the GPC/BoU. There may still need to be adjustments, but what needs to happen (IMO) is either ditching the mechanic or ensuring there is a way for PLs to exercise it. Let's talk about Greg's listing of glory awards, since you've (quite properly) brought it up: First, do you think the awards are appropriate? Should they be adjusted if there are, say, other defined glory income opportunities? At the moment this is a definitive list of all the ways a Lady could expect to gain glory, excepting displays of skill in court. (And defeating enemies of course.) "First Marriage: 1000 after the wedding (husband does not get equal points). PLUS Glory equal to her husband’s." --This is... a lot of glory! But is it subject to the cap of 1000 for a single incident? In that case the man's glory award portion would top out at 1000, and the woman would get 1000 for the wedding plus 1000 for the man = 2000. And any knight would do.... I guess size really doesn't matter when you just want to land a fish, eh? Or, did Greg intend to divide husband's glory by some amount (10?) and ignore the cap? That would make pursuing glorious knights very worthwhile since it would represent the quickest and fasted way to glory and thus social station. Pretty much as it was, in fact. An alternative would be to keep the cap of 1000 and adjust the bonus to the point desired; if /10 then the max glory of the husband that matters becomes 10,000. However /10 is the bonus from in-law glory when children wed, so Greg probably did intend the flat amount from the husband. Which is odd since that will automatically tend make the wife more glorious than her husband unless his glory is < 1000. (Husband award for marriage may affect the balance.) On the other hand, landing that 20k knight makes the prospect of trading in your "huge tracts... of land" for nuptials much more appealing. --Khanwulf
  19. My work here is done. Well no not really, but @Hzark10 has the right of it: it's about understanding better how society and culture is supposed to go together in the setting to create the "feel" of KAP and the incentives that underpin character interactions. Like the graft game in BoW--it drives home the point that our modern horror in the west at official corruption is quaint at best. And the "lady's game" of influence-trading, intrigue and gossip hiding under basic stewardship, manorial economics and industry is also appealing. The point is not to add so many systems that play is overwhelmed, but to provide tools for the GM to pull out and say "for this type of game this shorthand tool is useful"... and then set the fun without having to do the work of arbitrating so many moving parts. And culture? Details? Some of us spend far more time in books and articles trying to hammer in verisimilitude than at actual play. Because detail matters. And KAP swims upstream against a current of pop-fantasy and DnD tropes. It has to stand above them; on the shoulders of greatness, but also on stilts of plausibility. So back to wine: every interaction, by knights or ladies (and ESPECIALLY the ladies) is occasion for competition. And competition = glory. Ladies don't go out, slay dragons and rescue handsome knights--not much anyway--and they need sources of glory as well. Not much at a time, but just a few points in a parched economy is enough to bring out the knives. Figuratively. Mostly. --Khanwulf
  20. I will strive to do so. Obviously the area is of interest to me and I'm hoping to have more time for developing these kinds of things in the near future. You do have a full plate.
  21. Yes and they'd point to all of society's ills as side-effects. The church of the time apparently preached that marriage was an economic union for the procreation of the family line and its continuation as a going concern. Commoners to work the land and support those whom God had chosen to rule, and among nobles it ensures an orderly succession and management. For both, family honor and decency came first. Meanwhile love wasn't part of the equation, and considered a volatile and unwelcome element (as was hate); but commitment, adherence and covenant promises were a big deal, so showing you were serious about all that was... attractive. Especially if you were a woman whose social value was tied to your ability to manage men and the family fortune--discretely of course, and while popping out lots of heirs and piously tending to the church and poor. I mean... it beat working in the fields and waiting to be abused by people physically stronger than you, so as a social system goes, you can't beat results, eh? Back to the point on religious conversion: keep in mind that this is an age where you didn't have central credit bureaus, internet records and all that. "You" consisted of your personal word, and the testimony of your peers that your word was good and true. It dishonored you to have your word doubted, as that stain indicated to others that your credit was not good and should be questioned by them as well. Dishonouring a fighting man was dangerous, and so the least-worst option was to take someone at their word until shown otherwise. So if you're a priest and so-and-so comes up to convert, you would welcome them with open arms, and then work on/with them to ensure they are outwardly (and later, inwardly) reflecting the nature of the church and its teachings. I'll point out that things such as "personal relationship with Christ" and the like was really more a matter for consideration by theologians in monasteries with time on their hands. "Real people" were busy not starving or in keeping others from taking their stuff. --Khanwulf
  22. Thanks so much! I hoped that was the answer (book of feasts evolved from a player-created item, IIRC), however there are other forums out there where suggesting something made it a huge problem for the company.
  23. Cultures and practices. Weddings. Festivals. Agricultural seasons. Superstitions. Roman travel times map. Practical church impact (as in, what they do to influence and interfere with knights and commoners that makes handling them well, important). Just brainstorming.
  24. I think we're on exactly the same page. It would be nice to write this up in a section for the "Book of Courts and Tourneys" By the way... @sirlarkins is it inappropriate for us to be idea-hamstering products into imaginary existence? Does it cause IP and use problems for you and the game line? I mean if something fun comes out then we'd like to hope it makes your life easier and not harder, down the road. --Khanwulf
  25. I've not figured out how the formatting works for splitting quotes up like you do, so I'll just dig in: An APP 6 character isn't going to be hitting huge levels of effective APP from "investment" without a staff swarming over then and dripping them with equipment. And at that point they still won't come close. Over 20, sure, but when they start taking all that stuff off it'll be horrifying. You could do a nice story about that. People these days certainly have! That's not going to get you a love-aura, however. I think the threshold has to be 40+. At that point your casual presence is enough to transfix those unfamiliar with your grace, and your (undoubtedly critical) performance in court goes through them like thunderbolts. For good or ill. Prior to that, you could force the issue perhaps by purposefully paying attention to someone and succeeding in an appropriate roll to impress them, at which point they check of Amor, etc. This could apply on first scene meeting, or be re-rolled later if the [lady] sets out to do so. Once you've either rolled through the social skills in and around the individual, or failed in an encounter, you'll just forever a (very) pretty face. --In other words, a known quantity, even if eminently desirable. In all this, it's key to not separate the base stat and bonuses. Why? Because raising APP temporarily is part of the attribute! It's... honestly one of the few things going for it, the fact you can stack modifiers on it. So investing to do so should pay off: moth and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal, and even age takes its toll, so there's as much a race against time here as a knight dumping libra into horse and arms. And a bit of glory is fine--especially for the ladies. Basically the discussion here are about jazzing up social play, which the domain of wives and ladies, so they are not cardboard cutouts and stat columns dispensing babies. This is... a past due correction I think, even if half the women are named Elaine. --Khanwulf
×
×
  • Create New...