Running Multiple Characters per Player in Pendragon

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Which would suggest that landed knights should be more likely to get a Folk Lore check than a household knight, due to the greater interaction. 

Exactly my point.

Landed knights get Folk Lore check from their solo, "Your Own Land": Intrigue, Folk Lore, Stewardship and potentially Just/Arbitrary.

Household knights get Courtesy check from their (new) solo, "Liege's Household": Intrigue, Courtesy, potentially Homage Lord (successful roll gives a check, or take -1 if you prefer that), and roll one "Vassal Service" solo for one additional check.

[Atgxtg]

  I think the Solo system could do with an update. Frankly I think characters getting a few checks from solos is fine -especially as most of the checks would be for things that they's probably get while adventuring, and a skill can't get multiple checks. 

[Uqbarian]

I was just looking at the solo tables in the rulebook and thinking that for vassal service, a player could at least take one skill check and one trait check from the options (which would mean adding trait options for garrison duty).

On 9/4/2019 at 1:56 AM, Atgxtg said:

It can be, but depending on what you are trying to learn it could take a certain amount of knowledge before someone could learn something significant from a failure. For example, if you don't know anything about a language then you could try to read it for years and not pick up anything. 

But as far as general play goes, most skills are attempted multiple times, so getting a check isn't all that hard. The hard bit is the roll to improve, once someone has gotten good.

 

Fair enough!

 

On 9/3/2019 at 9:27 PM, Morien said:

We did consider that, too. However, we felt that it might result in players 'shopping' for rolls in their low skills just to get the check, and make it very hard to get a check in their high skills that really need the checks to advance.

We do give checks on Fumbles, which to us reflects more of a 'I won't do that again!' than a failure, which is more 'I dunno'.

 

I was thinking failures + crits, not just failures, but I see what you mean about potential 'shopping'. And your take on fumbles has convinced me to copy it.

[Atgxtg]

On 9/4/2019 at 10:02 PM, Uqbarian said:

I was just looking at the solo tables in the rulebook and thinking that for vassal service, a player could at least take one skill check and one trait check from the options (which would mean adding trait options for garrison duty).

Yeah, I agree. I could have sword it used to be that way at one time, too, but that could just be my memory playing tricks on me.

On 9/4/2019 at 10:02 PM, Uqbarian said:

I was thinking failures + crits, not just failures, but I see what you mean about potential 'shopping'. And your take on fumbles has convinced me to copy it.

I think that would cause problems for characters once a skill hit 20. Such characters cannot fail a roll (baring modifiers) and only critical 5% of the time. Well with most of the major skills (sword, lance ,horse, awareness, heraldry, recognize, etc.) players get to roll them so many times during an adventure that the actual roll required doesn't matter so much as far as getting a check box goes, but for those skills/traits that only get rolled one or twice a game session such a  system would act as a "soft cap."

For example, lets say that Sir Aelfric the Saxon has Boating at 20.If checks are awarded for failures and crticals, then he would only get a check on a critical, which he has a 5% chance of rolling. Then he's only improve it he rolled a second 20 later (also a 5% chance). So his skill only has a (1/20)^2 = 1/400= 0.25% chance of improving. So unless the Knight spends glory he probably won't go from 20 to 21 in his lifetime.But, if Aelfric does spend glory to up his skill over 20 his chances of improvement start to increase! So at 24 he'd have a 1% chance of improving, at 29 a 2% chance and so on.  

 

 

 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, I agree. I could have sword it used to be that way at one time, too, but that could just be my memory playing tricks on me.

In 4th edition Vassal Service solo, assuming I am reading this right, you got checks to all of the relevant skills and could choose which relevant Traits to check.

[Uqbarian]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think that would cause problems for characters once a skill hit 20. Such characters cannot fail a roll (baring modifiers) and only critical 5% of the time. Well with most of the major skills (sword, lance ,horse, awareness, heraldry, recognize, etc.) players get to roll them so many times during an adventure that the actual roll required doesn't matter so much as far as getting a check box goes, but for those skills/traits that only get rolled one or twice a game session such a  system would act as a "soft cap."

For example, lets say that Sir Aelfric the Saxon has Boating at 20.If checks are awarded for failures and crticals, then he would only get a check on a critical, which he has a 5% chance of rolling. Then he's only improve it he rolled a second 20 later (also a 5% chance). So his skill only has a (1/20)^2 = 1/400= 0.25% chance of improving. So unless the Knight spends glory he probably won't go from 20 to 21 in his lifetime.But, if Aelfric does spend glory to up his skill over 20 his chances of improvement start to increase! So at 24 he'd have a 1% chance of improving, at 29 a 2% chance and so on.  

But that's the same as in the standard rules, isn't it?  

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Uqbarian said:

But that's the same as in the standard rules, isn't it?  

No, the RAW is:

1. Critical success, OR

2. "A success in a significant situation is achieved."

Now skill 20 is 100% to achieve either of these conditions as long as a significant situation comes up. However with your 'failures + crits' house rule, skill 20 cannot fail, so you have to get a crit to get a check, 5% chance.

That is what Atgxtg is pointing out, Skill 20 went from 100% to get a check and then 5% chance to increase = 5% total chance to improve by experience, to 5% chance to get a check and 5% chance to increase = 0.25% total chance to improve by experience. Clearly a much worse proposition.

He also makes the valid distinction that while you might roll Sword several times during an adventure and hence stand a much better chance of critting at some point (especially with modifiers like attacking a knight who is trying to get up), some of the less rolled skills you might only get a single roll per year, and the above math would be correct.

[Uqbarian]

28 minutes ago, Morien said:

No, the RAW is:

1. Critical success, OR

2. "A success in a significant situation is achieved."

Now skill 20 is 100% to achieve either of these conditions as long as a significant situation comes up. However with your 'failures + crits' house rule, skill 20 cannot fail, so you have to get a crit to get a check, 5% chance.

That is what Atgxtg is pointing out, Skill 20 went from 100% to get a check and then 5% chance to increase = 5% total chance to improve by experience, to 5% chance to get a check and 5% chance to increase = 0.25% total chance to improve by experience. Clearly a much worse proposition.

He also makes the valid distinction that while you might roll Sword several times during an adventure and hence stand a much better chance of critting at some point (especially with modifiers like attacking a knight who is trying to get up), some of the less rolled skills you might only get a single roll per year, and the above math would be correct.

But I wasn't planning to remove the 'success in a significant situation' option. (I didn't think I needed to actually spell that out.)

RAW:

1. Critical success

2. GM's decision (e.g. 'success in a significant situation')

The house rule I was considering:

1. Failure or critical success

2. GM's decision (e.g. 'success in a significant situation')

So for skill 20 or higher, this is the same as RAW, no?

(I'm guessing that option 2 was included in the RAW partly to help with the issue faced by Sir Aelfric the Boating Knight.)

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Uqbarian said:

But that's the same as in the standard rules, isn't it?  

No, as Morien elaborated on it isn't. Normally the checks are earned on a success so the chances of getting a check slowly increase, while the chances of actually making the improvement rolls are based on failure and so slowly decline. The net result is a bell curve where improvement is slow on the the ends but fast in the middle (10ish). 

 

Also, #2 is, in practice, just about any successful roll. At least it is in the stuff Greg wrote. The restrictions are there to discourage frivolous rolls (i.e. a player who tires to go down his character sheet like a check list) or for those GMs who want to control or limit advancement for some reason -like those who prefer to hand out X number of improvement rolls per session or such. But IMO, based on how the official adventures were written and the pace of the game, I think GMs should be very open to just about any successful roll with skill checks, as unlike in other RPGs, PKs have a shelf life of 20-30 game sessions/years or so.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

21 minutes ago, Uqbarian said:

(I'm guessing that option 2 was included in the RAW partly to help with the issue faced by Sir Aelfric the Boating Knight.)

No, more the opposite. You see originally the "success in  significant situation" rule was the norm for all RQ/BRP/KAP games. But over time, several GMs complained, either because of the possibility of players "skill check hunting" or just because they want to control advancement the way many other RPGs do with experience/improvement points. 

 

So #1 got added and #2 modified into its current form to allow GMs who didn't like the original method to tone down the number of skill checks received to an amount that they were happy with while still letting those of us who prefer the old method to stick with it. In fact, if you think about it #1 only exists in case GMs are a little too strict with #2, as most instances of #1 would qualify under #2 as well. 

oh, IMO "skill check hunting" should be a real problem, at least nor for very long, as the risks and the penalties for the all the increased failures and losses from check hunting greatly outweigh the benefits. If you take a new PK and keep trying to get checks in all his weapons every year what what happens. In a fairly short number of sessions you'll be wondering if it is worth taking a major wound (or worse) just to get a check in dagger, a weapon that you probably wouldn't want to use if you didn't have to. Especially since you could get it up much more safely and quickly via training & practice.  

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Uqbarian]

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, more the opposite. You see originally the "success in  significant situation" rule was the norml for all RQ/BRP/KAP games. But over time, several GMs complained, either because of the possibility of players "skill check hunting" or just because they want to control advancement the way many other RPGs do with experience/improvement points. 

 

So #1 got added and #2 modified into it current for to allow GMs who didn't like the original method to tone down the number of skill checks received to an amount that they were happy with while still letting those of us who prefer the old method to stick with it. In fact, if you think about it #1 only exists in case GMs are a little too strict with #2, as most instances of #1 would qualify under #2 as well.

Thanks for the background!

[Atgxtg]

10 minutes ago, Uqbarian said:

Thanks for the background!

Oh, it's actually kinda ancient history here, and one of the things that can potentially touch off a flame war in the RQ.BRP forums. 

 I think #1 &#2 really mean "award skill checks however you see fit, your Pendragon may vary."

 

As for your variant, I think it might be a little too easy to get a check since pretty much any attempt could qualify for one. I'd be more inclined to replace failures with fumbles, because it is usually the really bad mistakes that people learn from. In real life I had a friend who learned the lard way why you don't do a circular parry in the opposite direction of the attack. He fumbled and we both learned why. Had he just failed we wouldn't have.   

Edited September 25, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Uqbarian]

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

As for your variant, I think it might be a little too easy to get a check since pretty much any attempt could qualify for one. I'd be more inclined to replace failures with fumbles, because it is usually the really bad mistakes that people learn from. In real life I had a friend who learned the lard way why you don't do a circular parry in the opposite direction of the attack. He fumbled and we both learned why. Had he just failed we wouldn't have.   

Yeah, that's why I said upthread that Morien had made me rethink to fumbles instead of failures.

[Atgxtg]

Just now, Uqbarian said:

Yeah, that's why I said upthread that Morien had made me rethink to fumbles instead of failures.

Yeaqh much better.

BTW, what sort of results are you shooting for? A couple more checks in general? A lot more? 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Uqbarian said:

But I wasn't planning to remove the 'success in a significant situation' option. (I didn't think I needed to actually spell that out.)

Ah, that is where the misunderstanding happened. You see, I was saying 'I give checks pretty much on any other result than a failure', and you replied that you were thinking of giving checks on failures and criticals, hence implying that you do not give checks on successes and fumbles.

But glad that I am helping you 'see the light'!

[Atgxtg]

19 hours ago, Morien said:

In 4th edition Vassal Service solo, assuming I am reading this right, you got checks to all of the relevant skills and could choose which relevant Traits to check.

Yeah, your right. Same in 3rd. A few places specifically state checks to...

 

[Uqbarian]

21 hours ago, Morien said:

Ah, that is where the misunderstanding happened. You see, I was saying 'I give checks pretty much on any other result than a failure', and you replied that you were thinking of giving checks on failures and criticals, hence implying that you do not give checks on successes and fumbles.

But glad that I am helping you 'see the light'!

My mistake! Sorry about the confusion.