Jump to content

tenchi2a

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About tenchi2a

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Being a knight is their job not their culture. The point was they come from a city dwelling urbanized British culture as you stated while they can become knights that was not their cultural identity. ""These are the Old Families of the “ancient aristocracy.” The urban Britons revere their Roman heritage, especially their legal system that has maintained the “peaceful imperial times"" These are not remnants of roman legionnaires, but as is stated aristocracy so the Law skill is a fine fit for them not a specialized combat skill. That was my point. first your %'s are way off as only the first 4 legions where raised in roman and tended to be kept as province defense and the other 10 where from client states so it would be more like 29% Roman citizens + 71% Italian Socii. And the citizen is one I have seen debated as what was truly considered a Roman citizen has always been in question. The point about "Latin Rights" is always the sticking point as even some "Roman citizen" did not always have "Latin Rights". That said, I was more describing The Roman Empire near the fall, as that would be the time that mattered to the KAP game.
  2. Again I am not concerned with there combat skills. I am concerned with their non-combat skill which are the true mark of their cultural upbringing. you seem to be stuck on just one skill representing the whole package, while I agree that skill is an important skill the rest of the chart also factors in and you idea washes over that. Just in the British cultures there are major differences in skill distribution and those distributions also change depending on the time period. Doesn't need to be much difference to be different. You seem to have the administrative roman nobles the culture in the game represents confused with the roman legions. First the roman legions were a subculture of the roman society not the Romans at large, and for the most part outside their generals (Legatus legionis) were normal not roman citizens. The tended to be Socii or client state citizens who where indoctrinated into the roman legion culture, roman citizens did not normally if every join the legions. And as the roman empire had been in decline since 410 AD and collapsed in 476 AD roman culture in KAP is the remnants of the noble administration from the occupation that chose to stay or the British peoples that adopted the culture. So no the roman society in the game is not the roman legions it is the roman administrators, so the culture skill is fine. The roman culture that you are talking about would be the Byzantines in this game and I would say their cultural skill of "Tactics" fits the conquerors that you are portraying. I don't feel its a moot point as again I am more about the total culture balance of all skills not just one or two and thru out each of the cultures skills charts their are differences not just with one or two skills.
  3. If that was the case I could see it, but as presented its not. The point here to me is that in the current system its up to the players to actively work to brake the stereotype. In the system you and Atgxtg are proposing all players are equal from a generic attribute to skill conversion even if they don't put any work into being different from the stereotype. Here I have to say I disagree as that is the point of the different cultures. Roman society at large puts more emphasis on Courtesy and Intrigue where Cymric society is more about the sword and spear. You are dealing with a Knight who has been brought up with his society norms, so of course he will be better with spear and the same goes for Roman society and Courtesy and Intrigue. to brake the mold one needs to active fight against the norms (Roleplaying and skill selection) not have it handed to them by the system.
  4. Ok this we can agree on. I have never liked the Idea of Narrowly Defined Optional Skill especially when they have a tendency to be put in several books later after the need has faded or an optional rule has taken its place. As a example why have the Knife-throwing skill, there is a Dagger skill and a throwing skill why would you need a skill to combined these? I agree when it is warranted, but minimalism can be its own trap to. I think we all feel that way. One of the major issues I took with the Newer Mechwarrior game (A Time of War) outside of the need a spreadsheet character creation was the generic character it created due to the removal of faction specific. The first thing I see with the Idea presented here is the removal of the faction specific skill list as they would be replaced by, lets face it, a generic attribute to skill conversion so that culture no longer matters only attribute. First, this kills random attribute since no one is going to want to be skill crippled by a roll. Second, like all PC the players are going to find the optimum point spread to get the best skills and start cloning it, so all PCs will become carbon copies from then on. P.S. another of the system that got hit by the lets "balance and streamlining" it bug. But while they streamlined the mechanics they went overboard on the character creation somehow creating a at once more generic but also overly complex character creation system. That takes skill. I was using the mod in the book which where in +5 intervals and capping it at +10. As most non-combat skill tend to be much lower the combat skills I never found a problem with it. No issues keep having your opinions.
  5. While I don't retract any of my former statements, I will say that I may have been to harsh do to my last few weeks on the Shadowrun forums and dealing with the complete gutting of the system in the name of "balance and streamlining". Making it the 3rd game I liked (Star Wars, Legend of the Five Rings) to be destroyed by companies trying to get new customers at the expense of old customers that have supported them through the thin years before RPG became main stream. So to come to another forums for a game I like and hear lets change the rules it will be better kind of is my "trigger word" right now. AS for gaming, I may not have the years you have but I have been gaming since the mid 80's, and have seen many rules that where suppose to enhances turn around and bite the writers on the @$$
  6. All that said the most impotent contribution from APP and DEX are to the aging rules. If either of these hit 0 you die, so to me that alone makes them equal to the other stats IMHO. So if you want to have low APP and DEX risking earlier death, more power to you.
  7. (U.S.) way of saying a person is acting strange: He's off his medication. Or...The doctor needs to up his dosage. Etc. So a statement that is implying a person is not of a normal stat of mind, so an insult. To use it as a non insult requires familiarity that we don't have as two people on a web forum. Here your are reaching, my idea comes from using the mod system as presented in the book not coming up with a mod from a derived state formula that is not present in the book. There is no contradiction. See below. Again this is only true if you completely ignore the the second part of the sentence (though you may wish to make it so). Why does ever response ignore the (though you may wish to make it so) part of the sentence, a (,) is a continuation of an idea not a new one. That part is still RAW, but you seem to ignore it to make your point. So no, the RAW do not contradict my point. They provide an option within the core rules for doing what I am saying. IF you are looking for a word "optional rule" is one I would except as everything I have said has connection to the RAW, but hose rule implies that I made everything up. The issues here is that by your logic a person with APP (18) could have all negative and a person with APP (5) could have all positive. this is the shining example of braking "suspension of disbelief" which you must have for any RPG to work. The idea that someone with APP (5) would have 3 positive distinctive features is a hard one to follow. As, according to you this "unattractive and possibly physical deformity" (right from the book) knight can be; bright-eyed nice smile blond Nothing here that explained his APP (5) appearance. or a APP (18) "attractive character" (again from the book) knight can be; hunchback flabby facial blemishes A real winner for an APP (18) here. Now you are implying my meaning outside of the point I was making. Most if not all these mod that you are addressing are part of the combat system, not what we where taking about here. The area we where taking about was non-combat skills which the game takes great strides to keep separate from the combat skills. (How they are raised, used, etc) And the section on skills only gives two non-combat examples, and both examples are roleplaying examples not set modifiers. Has the "lack of APP doing anything" come up in 30+? I ask because someone would have to say something first before it would be discussed. I would think if it had then Greg or whoever had the license at the time would have addressed it. sorry mistype. It also doesn't say that of you are riding your horse and it is startled by a large snake the horsemanship roll gets a -5, would you say that that is a house rule or a use of the modifier system provided. If the former the it is clear you are a rules lawyer and this conversation is pointless. If the latter that you have just undercut your argument. Agin see above. If you are only going to use the first part of the sentence then again this conversation is pointless. I have seen less lead to bans on websites. And if this is not an office Chaosium web it should make that fact know on the site. (bold) And again here you ignore section of the sentences that don't agree with you point. There is no implied modifier form "STR for Faerie Lore" I can do that to. You have this tendency to jump to combat rule for everything even when they are not in question. I know quite a few KAP GMs/players that think I'm right as I did not come up with this idea it was my first KAP GM. And most of the GMs that I have presented it to over the years have adopted it. Now that is neither here nor there. I was presenting an will call it an option for how APP can be useful in the game. I am not looking for your validation or anyone else on the boards (the 2-3 other people that have responded to this thread), if you need it that your thing. I just don't like being attacked or in a sense called a liar. So I was forced to defend myself. If you don't like the rule "optional or what ever" don't use it. I have already responded to the "What are you smoking?", comment above.
  8. I have not once insulted you in this forum and I expect the same respect form you. If you don't agree with what I have said that is your right, but insults to me prove you have not true valid arguments. See "What are you smoking?" below. I have explained my position on this if you only see your ideas as valid that's your prerogative. It's not my job to convince you otherwise I have shown how provided rules within the current rules as written can easily handle this but since it is not written as this its what you do directly and to the letter in the rule you brush it off as not the rule. If you need a in-dept chart with all the modifiers in the game and can't use the open modifier system provided in the game that a failing on your part not the games. As an GM you should know the rule are a tool kit not a tech manual, so if the rules don't list specific modifier in the example it does not mean it is not part of the rules. If you went by that logic only Falconry and Awareness could ever be modified. I have shown that while it doesn't give a step-by-step instructions to do what I suggest the rule that make it up are all present in the RAW. Rule as Written. 1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features pg. 37 2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. pg.37 3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. pg.114 4. These modifiers can be anything that fits the roll. pg.144 Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you were being passionate about your ideas, but Next time it will be a report not a response if you insult me again.
  9. To me this comes down to your definition of a House Rule. The to ways one can define 1. Any rules that come directly out of the RAW but are not specifically stated can be called HR. Such as ruling that during a Hunting expedition, since the knight is using his favorite dog he gets a +5.(I don't agree with this) 2. Changes to the RAW to facilitate preferences at a certain gaming table. Such as, changing the initiative rules so that instead of it being a roll it is by set attributes. (This is my view of a HR) P.S. not directly related to KAP 5.2 but something that I did see a GM do in another game. To me what I have written doesn't qualify as one because they fit the RAW. Rule as Written. 1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features 2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. 3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. So to my view of House Rules this doesn't qualify, but if you disagree forum readers already have your warning.
  10. I use the highlighted part of that statement And the fact that the section on Modifiers on page pg.114 Don't give any set modifiers only ranges allowing GM's to apply them as needed. So while you are right that it no ways states that what I do is a rule. The rules cover it so I would not call it a house rule. And to me that was the point of why the modifier section was written as it was to allow GMs freedom to use them how they liked.
  11. The APP means nothing idea I totally disagree with, but each to their own. As I have said before APP is directly responsible for Distinctive Features. If you fail to use them in your game then that's a fault in your game not the mechanics. When I play I uses them all the time as skill modifiers. I divide the chart into positive and negative Distinctive Features. APP Value No. of Features Results 5–6 3 3 negative features 7–9 2 2 negative features 10–12 1 1 positive (12) or negative features (10) with (11) being players choice. 13–16 2 2 positive features 17+ 3 3 positive features Each features provides a -/+5 modifier to skills it would logically effect as determent by the GM, and the effects stack if applicable. So quickly without any changes to the rules APP has a major effect on skills.
  12. Thank you for your great work on these supplements and for the insight into there use. 😎 I was not planning on using BOM because it appeared to be obsolete, but thank you for confirming it. 😀
  13. Cool makes sense. Both my editions are the newest versions from what I can find. BOE Version 1.3.2 and BOW Version 1.2. And while we have been talking, I checked both book and have found some differences in just a quick look. Such as BOE not allowing for variation in cash flow for being childless where BOW increases Discretionary Fund +1. So I'm not sure that they are the same? Sure I can see that From what I gather most improvements to land and income in BOE/BOW boil down to spoils and land grants and not improvements. Most of my players are familiar with it either owning the books or having played before. An I have both GM it before and played in a few campaigned in 3rd editions, so this will be my first time in this running in 5th. Thus the questions.
  14. Not sure how that works but ok BOE seems to try and state it works for early gameplay (10£-100£) BOW claims it works for any level of gameplay(10£+). So I'm getting some mixed signals here. I was wondering because of Appendix D : New Economic Model It seems to imply that it replaces BOE. As I said I am familiar with a lot of the book sections, but never gave it a good read other then the sections I needed. Same question as above is Appendix D : New Economic Model an add-on to BOE or a replacement? HI will be taking an in dept look at BOE, but just wanted to make sure I was not wasting my time if it got replaced. Shouldn't have issues my player are vets of many much harder systems
  15. So if I understand it correctly Book of Manors is the old system which I have used before and was replaced by Book of Estates. But is Book of Warlords the replacement for Book of Estates or is it an add-on to it? Either way what what would you recommend I use for my new GPC that I am about to start. I have all three and have used Manors before, but outside of a read through on Estates and a quick look at Warlord (mostly use it for NPCs and Coat of Arms) I don't have much experience with the others.
×
×
  • Create New...