Book of Feasts Question

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

So, this is probably not helpful, but here's how I deal with clothes/gems:

Actually it is kinda helpful. Much of  the underlying thinking is similar to what we've  been kicking around in this thread. Namely that  you need to s pend more to get more of a bonus and  that the higher your standard of living the more you should have to spend to get a bonus.

 

[Morien]

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

the higher your standard of living the more you should have to spend to get a bonus.

As long as you get a bonus* for what you have spent for your standard of living, too. I mean, I'd be a bit miffed if I am spending £15 per year (extra £9) on living the life and get no bonus for it but someone can drop £1 in and get a bonus.

* As people might know, I am solidly against childbirth & survival modifiers for the grade of maintenance, and have argued that it should be more of a social peacocking thing: show your status and importance via conspicuous displays of wealth. Hence my argument is that SoL should be giving finer clothing, fancier food at the table and bonuses for social interaction & glory. 

 

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Morien said:

As long as you get a bonus* for what you have spent for your standard of living, too. I mean, I'd be a bit miffed if I am spending £15 per year (extra £9) on living the life and get no bonus for it but someone can drop £1 in and get a bonus.

Yes, I agree.

7 hours ago, Morien said:

* As people might know, I am solidly against childbirth & survival modifiers for the grade of maintenance, and have argued that it should be more of a social peacocking thing: show your status and importance via conspicuous displays of wealth. Hence my argument is that SoL should be giving finer clothing, fancier food at the table and bonuses for social interaction & glory. 

I disagree somewhat. Naturally a higher standard of living  would also include a better diet and  better living accommodations (warmer building with more tapestries to cover drafts). So I could see a modifier, but not a big one.

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Naturally a higher standard of living  would also include a better diet and  better living accommodations (warmer building with more tapestries to cover drafts).

Yes in comparison to a starving poor serf living in a rickety hut and unable to afford firewood or food for his children. But this is a knightly family we are talking about, and minor differences (up to x2) in money spent.

When it comes to the diet, the amount of calories is not an issue, and one could argue that by increasing the price of foods (more meat, sweet stuff, more potent wine), you are actually making the diet less healthy. Gout was a rich man's disease, and being fat was if not a status symbol (as the knights were expected to be physically fit), something associated with wealth as poor people would not have the means nor the leisure to pile on the pounds. As a comparison, assuming that you are a healthy, and reasonably well-to-do individual (i.e. you don't have to worry about your monthly food bill), just how much better your diet is if you buy twice the amount of meat that you currently do, and drop the green stuff and wholegrain bread in favor of sugared jam on white bread?

Also, one could argue that a wooden hall would actually be better insulated than a stone one (freezing during late winter and long into the spring, stifling hot during late summer and into the autumn), and a healthier place to live, too. In any case, there wouldn't be a huge disparity between the room where a baron sleeps and a room where a vassal knight sleeps: the difference would be more in the price of the furnishings, rather than a difference in kind. And if we are looking at knights, the grade of maintenance does not include treasure like tapestries or expansion of the manorial hall, but consumables like clothing and food. Thus, the argument of the better living accommodations would not be valid, IMHO, in any case.

Thus, I would argue that the step up from an ordinary knight to a rich knight, even to a superlative knight, would not markedly change the lifespan expectancy of the children, nor the number of children. 

[Atgxtg]

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

When it comes to the diet, the amount of calories is not an issue, and one could argue that by increasing the price of foods (more meat, sweet stuff, more potent wine), you are actually making the diet less healthy.

Aruge  yes, prove? Probably not. Even the bnobles didn't eat as much or as well as people in Europe or the  US do today. So that extra food, and better funishing might make a diference. Probably not as much as  in the KAP book, but I could see a +1 per grade of maintenance.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

 just how much better your diet is if you buy twice the amount of meat that you currently do, and drop the green stuff and wholegrain bread in favor of sugared jam on white bread?

Probably significantly at that level. Meat isn't bad for you. The major reasons why  meat is problem for some people today is due to a less physically active lifestyle and occupation. I  doubt they'd have sugaraed jam back then, and even thie rwhite bread wasn't like the processed stuff we get today. Not to  mention the lack of fillers allowed in today's foods.

 

Again I could see a +1 per grade of maintenance added to the second survival roll. That would work out to a fairly minor  reduction.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

Also, one could argue that a wooden hall would actually be better insulated than a stone one (freezing during late winter and long into the spring, stifling hot during late summer and into the autumn),

Yup. I'd go with that.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

and a healthier place to live, too.

I'm  not sold on that.  Stone tends  to be cleaner and less  prone to vermin and  parasites, although  stone halls did have  wooden  timbers for supports.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

In any case, there wouldn't be a huge disparity between the room where a baron sleeps and a room where a vassal knight sleeps: the difference would be more in the price of the furnishings, rather than a difference in kind.

Oh, I could think of a few things. The Baron's sleeping room is probably better heated, since the fireplace  won't h ave  to heat as big an area. It probably is less drafty due to tapestries, and probably has better blankets and better, fresher bedding too. It gets clearned more often and probably has fewer bugs.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

And if we are looking at knights, the grade of maintenance does not include treasure like tapestries or expansion of the manorial hall, but consumables like clothing and food. Thus, the argument of the better living accommodations would not be valid, IMHO, in any case.

Thus, I would argue that the step up from an ordinary knight to a rich knight, even to a superlative knight, would not markedly change the lifespan expectancy of the children, nor the number of children. 

Can we find examples of household and vassal knights that show that? 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The Baron's sleeping room is probably better heated, since the fireplace  won't h ave  to heat as big an area.

Does not follow. The Baron could easily have a larger bedroom than a vassal knight and hence more space to be heated. Besides, as I said later, if we are focusing the inquiry on what happens to a vassal knight PK who upgrades from Ordinary to Rich for one year, this ought to not involve any changes to the size of his bedroom, nor even the tapestries (which would be treasure, not SoL).

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Even the bnobles didn't eat as much or as well as people in Europe or the  US do today.

Partly disagreed, as your later contention about processed foods indicates as well. See for instance this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7148534.stm

Notice specifically the point about the nobles often overindulging, even though the link is mainly focused on the peasants' food. (I presume, assuming good circumstances rather than famine conditions.) Now the medieval people did not appreciate all the vitamins and things we take for granted, so I would agree that the noble diets might be badly out of whack, which is part what I am arguing, actually.

See more about the criticism of the medieval nobles' diets here (the opening paragraph): http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-food/medieval-diet.htm

And some more here: https://www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/the-medieval-diet#
 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Can we find examples of household and vassal knights that show that? 

Alas, I don't have a table of this information, and it would take a bunch of examples to get good statistics out of it. Furthermore, the best evidence is obviously for higher nobles and royalty. Often times the children who die young are dropped out of the chronicles, too, making child survival even harder.

Still, that being said, it seems that there is a lot of variation. You can take William Marshal with his 10 kids (all survived) and contrast his sons' luck (childless, as far as legitimate marriages go; granted, they seem all have married very late in life and died relatively soon after their marriages, within several years) with his daughters (generally several children). Or we can look at King Philip II of France, who had five children from two of his wives (3 survived, twin boys died within days of birth). These are naturally just some individual examples, and William Marshal and his kids were on the top tier of England's nobility.

William's father John Marshal (nee FitzGilbert)  had two sons by his first wife and four sons from the second, as well as three daughters. Total 9 children. But he probably ranked as a baron in KAP if not in history, since he had two castles and some lands under his command.

Indeed, most of the examples that can easily be found focus on baronial or regal families, not knights. But the overall impression is that there is more variance between the individual's number of issue within the class, than between classes themselves.

[Atgxtg]

19 hours ago, Morien said:

Does not follow. The Baron could easily have a larger bedroom than a vassal knight and hence more space to be heated. Besides, as I said later, if we are focusing the inquiry on what happens to a vassal knight PK who upgrades from Ordinary to Rich for one year, this ought to not involve any changes to the size of his bedroom, nor even the tapestries (which would be treasure, not SoL).

Okay, I can mostly buy that. The tapestries are a bit of a borderline case, since they  are treasure but also serve a function.

Quote

Partly disagreed, as your later contention about processed foods indicates as well. See for instance this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7148534.stm

Yes, generally  most of the high  class versions of foods (i.e. white bread) tend to be  less healthy than the lower clkass version. It why a lot of popular healty foods today (artisan breads)  would have been cosnidered peasant food in the middle ages.

Quote

Notice specifically the point about the nobles often overindulging, even though the link is mainly focused on the peasants' food. (I presume, assuming good circumstances rather than famine conditions.) Now the medieval people did not appreciate all the vitamins and things we take for granted, so I would agree that the noble diets might be badly out of whack, which is part what I am arguing, actually.

See more about the criticism of the medieval nobles' diets here (the opening paragraph): http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-food/medieval-diet.htm

And some more here: https://www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/the-medieval-diet#

I still think the nobles ate better than the peasants,  in part because the nobles always were able to eat, while  the peasants often had shortage due to famine. But since we are  dealing with survival between knights that is a moot  point.

Quote

Alas, I don't have a table of this information, and it would take a bunch of examples to get good statistics out of it.....

Indeed, most of the examples that can easily be found focus on baronial or regal families, not knights. But the overall impression is that there is more variance between the individual's number of issue within the class, than between classes themselves.

As for the latter, that is still true today. There are a lot of factors involved, and generics is one of them.  Wealth probably plays a factor too, especially with larger families.  But I'm not convinced that standard of living plays no part in it. I do think the bonuses in KAP are too generous, but I think the basic idea is sound. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I do think the bonuses in KAP are too generous,

Fully agreed.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

but I think the basic idea is sound.

Agree to disagree, when we are talking about knightly standard of living.

I could see penalties on survival and perhaps a minor penalty on childbirth if it drops all the way to Impoverished (you are living on peasant fare at that point, unless you do something about it, and the chargers are definitely going to get the chop, as there is no way you can keep your charger going on grass alone: sell your non-essential horses pronto, and beg, steal or borrow some more provisions!). Poor is still double that, so I would be hesitant to give penalties on survival and childbirth, although I could see a charger starting to suffer a bit. Granted, thanks to the BotE correction on the survival, the child survival bonuses do much less nowadays, muahahaha!

Similarly, I would be hesitant to mess with either survival or childbirth in higher standards of living. Sure, when we start talking about Barons and Kings, maybe they could get some small bonus, but a mere +50% or even +100% on the standard knight would be just upgrading the already perfectly adequate fare and clothing into fancier stuff. To be honest, rather than going through the route of the Standard of Living, I would be more inclined to look at Entourage members. As in, hire a full time professional nanny (£1) per child to be their constant, watchful companion, and keep (some) accidents from happening.

Medieval medicine being what it is, I am not sure that having a medical doctor present prescribing leeches on a child would do any good, more likely the opposite! (One of the leading causes of death by childbirth in the early 19th century was doctors not washing their hands between autopsies and childbirth, with the  fateful result of causing infection on the new mothers; much better to have a midwife! https://www.upworthy.com/women-were-dying-from-childbirth-at-hospitals-this-19th-century-doctor-figured-out-why Of course, autopsies were not permitted by the medieval church, but you could easily imagine a doctor coming from treating a sick person and not having changed clothes or washed for weeks and weeks...)

Of course, if magic is common in your campaign, maybe there is a possibility of getting some local wise woman mix some potions, or getting a chapter of nuns or monks sing prayers for your child's health, for a small fee (£1 per year per child?), granting some protection against illnesses? And I could see potions or divine help giving some bonus to childbirth, too. (Pagans, remember the Beltaine fires, although make sure that you don't lose track of your spouse!)

Edited December 19, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

On 12/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, Morien said:

to disagree, when we are talking about knightly standard of living.

Ah well, we can't agree on everything.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, Morien said:

Granted, thanks to the BotE correction on the survival, the child survival bonuses do much less nowadays, muahahaha!

 

Which is also why a +1 and +2 would not seem like a big deal to me. It would reduce a 1.25% chance of death to 1%, to 0.75%. 

On 12/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, Morien said:

 I would be more inclined to look at Entourage members. As in, hire a full time professional nanny (£1) per child to be their constant, watchful companion, and keep (some) accidents from happening.

That's not a bad idea. Probably worth a +1 or so modifier. 

On 12/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, Morien said:

Medieval medicine being what it is, I am not sure that having a medical doctor present prescribing leeches on a child would do any good, more likely the opposite! (One of the leading causes of death by childbirth in the early 19th century was doctors not washing their hands between autopsies and childbirth, with the  fateful result of causing infection on the new mothers; much better to have a midwife! https://www.upworthy.com/women-were-dying-from-childbirth-at-hospitals-this-19th-century-doctor-figured-out-why Of course, autopsies were not permitted by the medieval church, but you could easily imagine a doctor coming from treating a sick person and not having changed clothes or washed for weeks and weeks...)

Medieval medicine is a mixed bag, it probably helps sometimes and hurts others. But Pendragon medicine should be a bit better, since there is still a Roman influence and Roman medicine was pretty good.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:31 PM, Morien said:

Of course, if magic is common in your campaign, maybe there is a possibility of getting some local wise woman mix some potions, or getting a chapter of nuns or monks sing prayers for your child's health, for a small fee (£1 per year per child?), granting some protection against illnesses? And I could see potions or divine help giving some bonus to childbirth, too. (Pagans, remember the Beltaine fires, although make sure that you don't lose track of your spouse!)

Possible but not all that common in my campaign, or most other's I'd assume. Although one PK did get a Bulla amulet in Rome for his son that grants a +1 to the survival rolls. It was a gift from General Aetius and actually worked, as opposed to most of the ones sold on the street. 

 

 

Still back to the feasts...

Putting some of our various  ideas together into  some sort of format:

• Knights and ladies could be seated mostly  according to their glory "band": Unproven Knights sit with Unproven Knights, Notable  Knights with Notable Knights, Famous Knight with Famous Knights and so on. The APP/Bling roll could bump a character up or down a group, two groups with a critical or fumble(i.e Notable  up to Renowned and Famous, or down to Respected  an Unproven. A Famous Knight with 10,000 Glory is only going to be bumped down so far-unless he isn't recognized for some reason.
• Cards will be drawn one at a time. A character can either play the card drawn, or redraw and take the new card, up to a limit of APP/6 cards. 

 

I wonder should play proceed according to seating, glory, APP, or geniality?

I also wonder if perhaps the 1 point geniality awards for winning one of the "skill contests" could instead by tied to the opponent's glory, as with tournaments? So beating a Legendary Knight at chess might be worth more than just beating some unproven knight?

[Tizun Thane]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:30 PM, Morien said:

How about flipping the uses of Glory & APP? Glory determines your seating (as it should), and APP determines on how many cards you get to draw: Beautiful People get more opportunities to choose from.

Edit: Also, it means that the Ugly People are more boorish, since if they pull a bad card, that is what they end up with.

I playtested this houserule last week twice, and it worked marvellously. All the players were happy. My houserules were:

• seating :glory/1000+£ in clothes (+5 max) +£ in jewels (+5 max)+ others (DM's fiat)
• drawing cards: App 5 to 8= 1 card, App 9 to 12 = 2 cards,  App13-17 = 3 cards, App 18 and beyond = 4 cards
• Each player draw his cards one by one and discard it if you don't like it (up to the limits, of course!). It was another Morien's idea, I believe.
• Even above the salt, you can draw cards, but every geniality loss is doubled (ouch!)
• Every turn, the PK choose between drawing cards, eating and drinking (temperate/indulgent), or to use any social skill of their choice (even dancing, or singing)

^^

Edited July 20, 2020 by Tizun Thane
geniality loss, not bonus. Thanks Atgxtg ;)

[Atgxtg]

Some thoughts/questions on the house rule:

3 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

I playtested this houserule last week twice, and it worked marvellously. All the players were happy. My houserules were:

• seating :glory/1000+£ in clothes (+5 max) +£ in jewels (+5 max)+ others (DM's fiat)
•  
• drawing cards: App 5 to 8= 1 card, App 9 to 12 = 2 cards,  App13-17 = 3 cards, App 18 and beyond = 4 cards

 

What happens to character with an APP of 4? I bring this up only because I've seen many Pendragon character's "ugly out" due to age. Since characters with APP of 3 or less are bedridden and thus not at feast, they are not an issue, but those with APP 4 are. Are they just not able to draw any cards or lumped in with the 4-8 crowd.?

Also, I think the upper limit should be raised to account for characters with ultra high APP scores. APP tends to be the highest characteristic for most women, but with 18+ all being lumped together, they don't really benefit much from it. Most women will end up in the 3 card band, and quickly shift to 4 cards, and then stop improving APP. Expanding it to 5 cards at APP 22 and 6 cards at APP 26 would really help make APP More useful and make the beauties the center of attention at the feast.

3 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

• Each player draw his cards one by one and discard it if you don't like it (up to the limits, of course!). It was another Morien's idea, I believe.

Interesting, but perhaps a bit slow. My players all draw at once, and it still takes several minutes for them to read through their choices and decide upon a card. 

3 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

• Even above the salt, you can draw cards, but every geniality bonus is doubled (ouch!)

Are geniality losses doubled as well? It would seem to make sense that any sort of social Faux Pas would be more significant.

Also, some of the cards are really powerful, such as the card that lets you give away other cards and gain geniality for it. If someone above the salt gets double bonuses for those it will become a complete blowout, with no one else able to compete with someone who gets 4-6 extra generality per round, and lead to some huge Glory awards for the winners.

3 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

• Every turn, the PK choose between drawing cards, eating and drinking (temperate/indulgent), or to use any social skill of their choice (even dancing, or singing)

Yes, the other social skills should be brought into a feast like the "big four" of gossip, flirt, temperate./indulge and gamble. They come up in some cards, and the GM can add some dancing to the feast, but they still suffer compared to the big four. 

[Tizun Thane]

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What happens to character with an APP of 4? I bring this up only because I've seen many Pendragon character's "ugly out" due to age. Since characters with APP of 3 or less are bedridden and thus not at feast, they are not an issue, but those with APP 4 are. Are they just not able to draw any cards or lumped in with the 4-8 crowd.?

I was under the (false) assumption that a character with App 4 was out of the game, but you are right. I suppose he could draw at least one card.

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Are geniality losses doubled as well?

My bad! I mispoke. I edited my post to be more clear. Thank you! I was only speaking about geniality losses. The geniality wins are normal (except you gain a free +2/round just by sitting above the salt)

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Interesting, but perhaps a bit slow. My players all draw at once, and it still takes several minutes for them to read through their choices and decide upon a card. 

It was my fear as well, but in game, even with 5 players, it was not that long. There was less reading, and the choice is more simple (play the card or discard it). You could speed the game by letting another player draws his card if the first one is taking too much time.

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Also, I think the upper limit should be raised to account for characters with ultra high APP scores. APP tends to be the highest characteristic for most women, but with 18+ all being lumped together, they don't really benefit much from it. Most women will end up in the 3 card band, and quickly shift to 4 cards, and then stop improving APP. Expanding it to 5 cards at APP 22 and 6 cards at APP 26 would really help make APP More useful and make the beauties the center of attention at the feast.

Indeed. I was thinking about expanding it to 5 cards beyond App 20.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Tizun Thane

[Tizun Thane]

37 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Also, I think the upper limit should be raised to account for characters with ultra high APP scores. APP tends to be the highest characteristic for most women, but with 18+ all being lumped together, they don't really benefit much from it. Most women will end up in the 3 card band, and quickly shift to 4 cards, and then stop improving APP. Expanding it to 5 cards at APP 22 and 6 cards at APP 26 would really help make APP More useful and make the beauties the center of attention at the feast.

Indeed. I was thinking about expanding it to 5 cards beyond App 20.

[Atgxtg]

49 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

Indeed. I was thinking about expanding it to 5 cards beyond App 20.

That sounds about right. I'd say let it kick at 23 to keep with the progression you got going and to account for the big APP bonus that female characters get. 

[Atgxtg]

59 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

I was under the (false) assumption that a character with App 4 was out of the game, but you are right. I suppose he could draw at least one card.

Okay. Again, I justpointed that out because APP tends to drop as characters age. 

59 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

My bad! I mispoke. I edited my post to be more clear. Thank you! I was only speaking about geniality losses. The geniality wins are normal (except you gain a free +2/round just by sitting above the salt)

Ah, yes that helps. It also restores that "are you sure you want to sit above the salt" element back into the game. Someone with poor social skills might be better off lying low. 

59 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

It was my fear as well, but in game, even with 5 players, it was not that long. There was less reading, and the choice is more simple (play the card or discard it). You could speed the game by letting another player draws his card if the first one is taking too much time.

Okay. Maybe I'll try that next time with my group. Currently the bog down going over the cards. I think it's party due to the effects of the aging table on my players! We can't read the text as easily as we used to. Maybe I should print the feast cards on blank 4x6 flash cards?

59 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

Indeed. I was thinking about expanding it to 5 cards beyond App 20.

Deja Vu. Anyway to beat a dead horse and get a cruel check, since the APP scores are generated at 3d6+5 for most females, a 15-16 is the average, so scores above 18 or even above 20 are not that rare, especially if the player has glory points and a reason. 23-26 =5 and 27+ =6 might work to expand the draw back to the core method. 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

It was my fear as well, but in game, even with 5 players, it was not that long. There was less reading, and the choice is more simple (play the card or discard it). You could speed the game by letting another player draws his card if the first one is taking too much time.

Is there any reason that this should not be the default? Every player drawing a card (if that is what they choose to do) at the same time, so that they can all be reading and making decisions whether to discard or play it at the same time?

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

Is there any reason that this should not be the default? Every player drawing a card (if that is what they choose to do) at the same time, so that they can all be reading and making decisions whether to discard or play it at the same time?

Yeah, there are a couple of reasons that I can think of. The second one is the more signficant, IMO.

 

1) In theory it sould be faster to draw all the cards at once and go though them rather than in sequence. So in theory one at a time shouldn't be faster. 

2) There are a couple of cards that  would mess up the "one at a time" mechanic. For instace if one player selects a card, but then another players gives them a card. With the RAW it's no big deal as the player can usually choose freely between the cards. But with one at a time, does the second play force the first player to switch cards, or can the first player refuse? Either way it makes some of the most powerful cards in the deck even more powerful. Either by letting one player force another to do something they don't want to, or by giving the second player lots of extra geniality without having to actually give a card to another player.  

I think that the work around for this would be to allow the first player to choose between the two cards. That can either be a special case specific to being handed cards by another player (there are only a handful of cards in the deck with this property), or possibly a new default with all players (who draw at least two cards) deciding between two cards.

 

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

1) In theory it sould be faster to draw all the cards at once and go though them rather than in sequence. So in theory one at a time shouldn't be faster. 

So there is a 'draw and play' order in Book of Feasts? That is easy enough to accomplish. You'll just have the players draw the cards at the same time (assuming that they choose to draw a card rather than some other choice if they have such a choice), and a moment for everyone to read and discard and redraw as necessary, before the first one in the play order plays his/her card.

In your example of being given a card, normal rules allow you still to choose between your cards what you wish to play, right? So that should still be valid: the second player gets a choice between the cards. If the second player refuses to accept the gifted card, it can be discarded but the first player still gets the geniality. I am assuming that is how the rules would normally work there: the second player cannot refuse the card, but he doesn't have to play it, so it is effectively 'discarded' while the first player gets the geniality?

I really ought to go ahead and get the Book of Feasts and read through it. It would make it so much easier to contribute to these discussions.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Morien said:

So there is a 'draw and play' order in Book of Feasts?

Not quite. The thing is normally players draw and decide which card to select at the same time, but there are a couple of cards that can be given to other players, and one card in particular that lets a player hand out his extra cards to the other players for geniality points. This normally isn't a problem as a player selecting a card out of six of seven cards isn't any more difficult that doing so out of three or four.

But, if a player has to draw cards one at a time, and then choose, getting a extra card from another player needs to be addressed somehow. The most likely solution would just be to let the player pick between the card he had already chosen, and the new card(s) given to him. 

 

Quote

In your example of being given a card, normal rules allow you still to choose between your cards what you wish to play, right? So that should still be valid: the second player gets a choice between the cards. If the second player refuses to accept the gifted card, it can be discarded but the first player still gets the geniality. I am assuming that is how the rules would normally work there: the second player cannot refuse the card, but he doesn't have to play it, so it is effectively 'discarded' while the first player gets the geniality?

In normal play, the player gets to look over all his cards  and then select one to play. Getting additional cards usually just means more options. But if the cards have to be looked at one at a time and decided upon, being given a card presents a problem. 

Quote

I really ought to go ahead and get the Book of Feasts and read through it. It would make it so much easier to contribute to these discussions.

Yup, that's worth a Prudent check.

The key thing about the BoF is that the cards are really the heart of the system, and most important factor. IN most cases they decide the winner. Seating is nice, but in most cases the winner is determined by who can play the high point cards successfully. There are a select few cards that practically give someone the win, unless one of the other cards show up, or if someone with a really high skill gets good seating and can roll lots of crits to keep up with geniality. It's also why I think the "one card at a time thing" might not work out so well, as I could see players continuing to draw to try and get one of those game changing cards. It's worth the risk.

There are some other fun things in the deck too, so it's not just about winning. I've had more than one thing going on in my campaign get sorted out by what cards people played. The card where a player;s liege lord "suggests" a good marriage prospect (bonus on the marriage table) is usually worth it, and is one of the cards a player can pass on, if he is already married. It's also not someone a player can otherwise get out of without annoying their liege lord.

BTW, since a player character will always win the contests, it can lead to some odd results. I recall one feast in particular where the most congenial player knight happened to be someone who fumbled his Temperate roll in the first round, got drunk ans passed out. Everyone else kept failing their rolls, and everything kept backfiring on them. By the end the passed out knight was one of two knights still at the feast, and the the only one with a positive geniality score!

 

There probably should be a minimum threshold to win.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's also why I think the "one card at a time thing" might not work out so well, as I could see players continuing to draw to try and get one of those game changing cards. It's worth the risk.

Yes, but that is part of the intent of this 'one card at a time design': there is an actual risk. If you get all your 3 cards at once, there is no risk and no choice: there card is either there or isn't. But if you draw them one by one, you might actually end up with a bad card that you have to play, something that almost never happens if you draw multiple cards at once. So that adds an additional element of choice and risk.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

There probably should be a minimum threshold to win.

Yes, I think we discussed that earlier.

[Tizun Thane]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

There probably should be a minimum threshold to win.

There should be a threshold. I tested 2 options. 3 geniality points by round is a bit too much (hard to reach). 2 geniality points/rd is lenient.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

There should be a threshold. I tested 2 options. 3 geniality points by round is a bit too much (hard to reach). 2 geniality points/rd is lenient.

I think it is tough to pint down as the cards are random, and feast related skill scores can vary much more between PKs than combat skills - that is, you can find an experienced  knight who isn't a good dancer, but you won't find one who isn't a good horseman. So I expect the avage probably goes up somewhat as the characters get experienced.

Hmm, lets think about the math:

• Most knights get 1 point per round due to seating; those above the Salt get 2.
• A skill roll is worth 1 point, 2 on a critical

So it looks like 1-4 points depending on seating and skill rolls. 

• A theoretical knight with 0 in all his feast related skills, would only get the 1 or 2 points from seating, and possible less if he fumbles.
• Another theoretical knight with 20 in all his feast skills, would get 2 or 3 points every round, and possibly a bit more if he rolls a critical.
• Yet another theoretical knight with 29 in all his feast skills, would critical half the time and get 2.5 or 3.5 points per round.
• Still yet another theoretical knight with 39 in all his feast skills, would critical all the time and get 3 or 4 points per round.

This works out to around (Skill/20) points per round, plus seating, so between 1.25-1.75, say 1.5 for a typical knight, upped another point if above the salt.  

• card values can vary considerably, but I think average about the same as a knight at the high table at around 2.5 points or so.

We can probably assume that the size of the feast would matter for the theshold (as more feasters means more competion), as well as the quality (those who go to the better feasts probably spend more time at court and thus have higher court skills).

 

So How about 2x the Number of Rounds + Quality as the threshold? 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Morien said:

Yes, but that is part of the intent of this 'one card at a time design': there is an actual risk.

I know. It's just not all that much of a risk.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

If you get all your 3 cards at once, there is no risk and no choice: there card is either there or isn't.

Mostly. THe thing is there are some interesting cards that get played now that probably won't with the one at a time method.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

But if you draw them one by one, you might actually end up with a bad card that you have to play, something that almost never happens if you draw multiple cards at once. So that adds an additional element of choice and risk.

It happens quite a bit with younger knights and less often as they gain glory, and thus have more cards to choose from. Part of what makes a card a bad card to play is also based on what skills a knight has, as well as the situation.Sometimes the perks on a card might outweigh the geniality points.

What I think will happen with one at a time is that players will be more inclined to keep fishing for one of the killer cards as opposed to deciding between the options they get by drawing. I might have to playtest it to see how it works.

 

 

 

[Tizun Thane]

48 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

So How about 2x the Number of Rounds + Quality as the threshold? 

By quality, do you mean the size of the feast? Because, it would be the same formula than 3 x number of rounds.

7 hours ago, Morien said:

But if you draw them one by one, you might actually end up with a bad card that you have to play, something that almost never happens if you draw multiple cards at once. So that adds an additional element of choice and risk.

To be honest, it is very funny in play ^^

[Atgxtg]

58 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

By quality, do you mean the size of the feast? Because, it would be the same formula than 3 x number of rounds.

No I mean quality in terms of how much is spent per feaster per the table on page 190 in the core book.You can have fewer feasters but they eat better. My thinking is that courtiers would expect a higher quality feast and would be the ones mostly likely to have high ratings in the skills required by the feast.

Ordinary (1d per guest): +1

Good (2d per guest): +2

Fine (4d per guest):: +3

Grand (8d per guest):: +4

Regal (16d per guest):: +5

 

This would give us a threshold range of 5 points (Ordinary Small Feast= 2x rounds x2= 4 points+1=5 ) to 15 points (Regal Royal Feast = 5 rounds x2= 10 +5= 15 points), with the average being in the 12-13 range.