Book of Feasts Question

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

Well, if they go on a fishing expedition, it means that their last card is the one they have to play. Which means that it can be any card, even one of the bad ones for them, which leads to a more varied and fun game play. Whereas if they always get to choose between 2-3 cards, the chance of a bad card getting played goes down dramatically. But the chance of a really good card would stay exactly the same, or even go down: If you have 3 cards capacity and draw them all together, you get the killer card and play it or you don't get it. The chance of not getting it is the same if you take one card at a time. However, if your 1st or 2nd card was good enough (especially the 2nd one), you might end up playing that rather than risk drawing the third card, which might have been the killer card. It adds more choice and excitement, IMHO. I'd be quite keen in hearing how the playtesting bears out my assumption!

[Atgxtg]

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

Well, if they go on a fishing expedition, it means that their last card is the one they have to play. Which means that it can be any card, even one of the bad ones for them, which leads to a more varied and fun game play.

POssibly. THe bad only gets so bad with feasts cards- and some of the really bad ones are "must play"anyway.

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

Whereas if they always get to choose between 2-3 cards, the chance of a bad card getting played goes down dramatically.

Yes, somewhat. Some cards take priority if you draw them. In most caes it's not so much a bad card, per say, but a bad card for a particular character.

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

But the chance of a really good card would stay exactly the same, or even go down:

Not quite, because some cards takes priory over others. So a player could stop before drawing the "must play" card. 

I'll have to try the idea out during a future feast to see how much it changes things. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morien]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'll have to try the idea out during a future feast to see how much it changes things. 

I look forward to hearing how it went!

[Tizun Thane]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:37 AM, Morien said:

look forward to hearing how it went!

So am I!

[Atgxtg]

It will be awhile though. I got my group through my "prequel" eras (from 410 through to 479), and we are taking a break before spending another couple of years to go through the Book of Uther and the GPC. It will be nice to have some actual pre-written adventures to use!

[Voord 99]

Hello - I’m new around here.

But I wanted to pick up on a point earlier in this thread that Morien made which I thought was very important: status should affect seating.  My understanding it that precedence mattered in the historical Middle Ages, and it comes up in the literature.  Sometimes, it’s part of the point of the Round Table to avoid conflicts over rank (as distinct from Glory).  In Layamon, earls become violently angry when knights are served before them.  So the egalitarianism of the Book of Feasts doesn’t suit the feel I personally want.

I was thinking about implementing something like the following for a game which I’m hoping to start in the near future.  It’s based on Tizun Thane’s system, but with a couple of tweaks.  I’d be grateful for any thoughts about how it might be improved, especially if there’s an obvious horrible pitfall that I’m missing.  I’ll mention that the game will have only one or at most two players.  

1) The GM (that is, me) assigns the player’s “correct” (or default) place based on their social rank and the setting.  A minor baron will be expected to be at high table in most times and places, but not at a huge royal feast attended by all of the great nobles of the realm.  For most PKs, this is Below the Salt, except in small unimportant feasts, where they may “correctly” be Near the Salt.    

From the player host’s perspective: everybody with a Courtesy skill knows how people rank in broad strokes, but a Courtesy or Stewardship roll (either) may be needed to get the specifics right of how this particular bishop ranks in comparison to this particular baron when you’re making the cut in marginal cases.  (This doesn’t have to be Stewardship as per the rules, in other words.)

2) Players are assigned places relative to their “correct” place by a roll against Glory/1000 (round down).  This is unmodified: jewellery and clothing affect APP only.  Failure puts you in your “correct” place; success moves you up 1; a critical moves you up 2; A fumble moves you down 1.  

More extreme results than that are always major events that reflect special circumstances and the GM’s decision, and mean that you have been singled out for an exceptional honour or an exceptional disgrace for some specific reason (generally, something that happened in play).

Being seated above your correct place is glorious: 10 for one place up, 20 for two places up; more (GM’s decision) for an exceptional honor.  This is an incentive to accept the seating, beyond the Geniality benefits.  

However, there is always someone (this is a zero-sum game, after all) who would be in your seat if you weren’t, and may resent you for this, which is an incentive to use the Ceding your Position rules (p.6) — which, if done well, retains the Glory and keeps everyone happy.  This is an opportunity for Intrigue rolls to read the politics behind your seating, Courtesy/Stewardship rolls to see if there’s an obvious candidate who’s being snubbed, etc.

A snubbed person need not be a knight, as there are other people at a feast who have comparable places in the order of precedence.  A prominent clergyman could be a very awkward enemy to make.

Being seated below where you should be is what triggers the “Effects on Honor” rule on p.6.  (RAW, this is going to come up too often for my tastes, as Honour loss is a nasty penalty.  This way it only comes up on a fumble.) 

3) Card-drawing works with Tizun Thane’s APP/5 rule (maybe APP/6), but it’s APP as modified by clothing and jewellery and Fashion. 

(Still thinking about which of the options discussed in this thread about how accoutrements should work most appeal to me, but I definitely think that clothing should count, and I am particularly attracted by the idea that clothing should cap the effect of jewellery, as it’s the whole ensemble that matters.)

4) The very high 10 x Geniality Glory for being the most notable guest only applies to memorable, important feasts.  Feasts at the courts of Uther and Arthur always count (except if it’s a Round Table feast, see below).  Less important feasts allow you to get the smaller base Geniality glory only.

At the end, you need to meet a threshold of 2 x rounds Geniality to be in contention for most notable guest — no matter what, you need to be competitive with the least successful person at high table.  

5) But that’s just to be in contention.  To “win” the feast you need make successful rolls in modified APP, Courtesy, and make again one roll that you succeeded during the feast (what your performance are most remembered for - the GM picks what they think was most memorable).  Ladies may substitute Fashion for any of these rolls.

Essentially, a knight who is perceived as lacking in APP and Courtesy will simply never be considered the “winner” of a feast by the medieval glitterati, no matter how well that knight handled specific social situations that came up in the course of the feast.  This also brings APP back in as a vital part of the process, since the guiding spirit of the original rules seems to be the desire to give APP more value.  The third roll is to make this more challenging (especially for knights, who cannot boost their Fashion) so that the very high Glory award seems deserved.  

6) But — even being in contention is impressive.  Successes on the three final rolls earn your Geniality again in Glory; criticals earn twice your Geniality.  Since I’m making it harder to be the most notable person, I want to have something that makes all this feel worthwhile for the character who gets a lot of Geniality but doesn’t quite make it.

7) I’m playing with the idea of this changing over time to reflect different periods.  E.g. :

In the Uther period, the winner, if a knight, must have won at least 1 of their Geniality points through being Indulgent, Valorous, Reckless, or Proud.  This does not apply to ladies.

Before 514, the most notable guest receives only 5xGeniality.  It is not until Guinevere arrives on the scene that courtly manners displayed in social settings are valued highly enough for people to care all that much about who came off best at a feast.

Also from 514, there are Round Table feasts for Round Table knights at which the entire system does not apply.  Everyone both gets 2 Geniality/round and can draw cards, and there is never a winner.  Lesser lords and kings than Arthur sometimes imitate these with their own round tables, to give PKs a chance to experience this alternative at least once.

From the Romance period on, there are separate Glory awards for the most notable lady and the most notable man, as otherwise lovers might be in competition, which would be against the spirit of true love.

In the Twilight period, as Mordred’s influence is felt and there is a constant undercurrent of malicious gossip, the rolls against modified APP, Courtesy, as well as the third roll, become opposed rolls against “Backbiting” (use double d20).  In this period also, it is no longer the case that no-one is considered the “winner” of a Round Table Feast.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Voord 99

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Voord 99 said:

Hello - I’m new around here.

Welcome!

A very nice first post, too.

[Tizun Thane]

21 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

1) The GM (that is, me) assigns the player’s “correct” (or default) place based on their social rank and the setting.  A minor baron will be expected to be at high table in most times and places, but not at a huge royal feast attended by all of the great nobles of the realm.  For most PKs, this is Below the Salt, except in small unimportant feasts, where they may “correctly” be Near the Salt.   

To integrate the status in the seating rules, you could give a bonus/malus, considering the size of the feast and the status of the knight.

For example, a vassal knight may have a -5 malus at a huge royal feast (he is basically a nobody), no malus at the court of his count, and a +5 bonus at the feast of an another vassal knight.

21 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

In the Uther period, the winner, if a knight, must have won at least 1 of their Geniality points through being Indulgent, Valorous, Reckless, or Proud.  This does not apply to ladies.

For the ladies, you could have Chaste, modest, sober, and the like, to reflect the views of the ideal lady of the times (ie meek).

21 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

Before 514, the most notable guest receives only 5xGeniality.  It is not until Guinevere arrives on the scene that courtly manners displayed in social settings are valued highly enough for people to care all that much about who came off best at a feast.

In my houserules, only the winner gains genialityx5, if he beats the threshold as well. The others gains their geniality in glory. The official rules are too much generous to my taste (You win more glory with a feast that you gain glory from a tournament).

[Voord 99]

5 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

To integrate the status in the seating rules, you could give a bonus/malus, considering the size of the feast and the status of the knight.

For example, a vassal knight may have a -5 malus at a huge royal feast (he is basically a nobody), no malus at the court of his count, and a +5 bonus at the feast of an another vassal knight.

Thank you.  That’s a very good idea, and easy to implement.  I think I will definitely want to use that.  One of the things that bothers me about the rules is that all feasts are created equal, aside from rounds and the flat +100 Glory for royal feasts for all guests.

(100 for that is another thing that’s a bit high, given the generosity of the “winning” award and the fact that one will be using this sometimes for GPC feasts where there is Glory to be gained for witnessing things - if you made most notable at the feast at which Ygraine tells her tale, you could walk out of the event with 400ish Glory.)

As for the award simply being too high, full stop, as compared to tournaments (and it’s comparable with some battles) — this is something where I’m pulled both ways.  

It is too high, but I quite like the idea of the high Glory being driven by the feast being memorable.  You don’t get the Glory for being the most notable guest at a feast, but for being the most notable guest at Arthur’s wedding feast, who is remembered for the modesty that they displayed on that occasion.  Something that’s worth recording in the character history, worth the GM having NPCs recall it years later.  Which should get you a lot of Glory, but also be hard to achieve.

(Thinking about it, this means that I should probably back off from the idea that all of Uther’s feasts are memorable.  Which is better, anyway, as Arthur should be special in a way that Uther is not.)

Arguably, the Geniality multiplier mechanic might be better replaced by something like the way tournaments work, with a set final bonus for the winner, based on the size of the feast and the status of the host.

Hmm.  How about the following?  

Same rules as above, but with the following changes.

1) Not only the also-rans, but also the winner gets their Geniality again for successes on the Three Rolls, with double for criticals.  The winner will get 4x-7x Geniality total, but almost all of the time at the low end of the range, unless he puts serious investment and Glory bonus points into things that are not useful in combat — and even then, a knight can only guarantee that APP and Courtesy will be relevant, with no control over the third roll.

2) There is an additional bonus Glory award for the winner,  It’s fairly small (because the winner has already at least quadrupled their Geniality, and larger feasts have more rounds, so there’s already a built-in increase).  

-Small Feast (if it somehow manages to be memorable):  Before Arthur’s wedding: 5 Glory/after Arthur’s wedding: 10 Glory.  (Winner gets a minimum of 21/26 Glory.)

-Medium Feast (also normally not memorable): 10/20 Glory.  (Winner gets a minimum of 34/44 Glory.) 

-Large Feast (can be memorable on rare occasions): 15/30 Glory.  (Winner gets a minimum of 47/62 Glory.)

-Royal Feast (generally memorable if a scripted GPC event, and often at other times):  20/40 Glory. (Winner gets a minimum of 60/80 Glory.)

This is in addition to any Glory gained for whatever made the feast memorable (which can, of course, be something that a PK did in the course of the feast), and the GM may award additional Glory for things that PKs do during the feast, irrespective of whether they win or not.  This includes things that happen as a result of a card draw, even when a Glory award is not on the card.  A knight or lady who sings excellently before great nobles after drawing the Center Stage card surely deserves some Glory, whatever the card says.

Note:  Because Arthur will not feast until he has seen a marvel, all of his great feasts (after his wedding) are always memorable.  However, these are typically Round Table feasts, at which there is no winner before the Twilight period.  (Even if others are present, the spirit of the Round Table governs the atmosphere of the event, and people do not engage in one-upmanship, even if they are not seated at the Round Table itself.)   

3)  The 100 Glory for attending a royal feast applies only to the first time that one does this; no Glory is received for subsequent attendance at royal feasts, except for what is achieved in play.   This is unless it is a Round Table feast.  Attendance at a Round Table feast is always worth 50 Glory (100 if it is one’s first royal feast), unless one is a Round Table knight, for whom attendance is routine.

(Look, you’re a Round Table knight.  You want more Glory just for turning up?  Besides, 50 Glory for you is a rounding error.)

Edited July 27, 2020 by Voord 99