Feast Question

[Atgxtg]

Okay

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm currently at 420, and don';t expect it to be such a big deal under Constatin. 

No, I wouldn't expect it to be such a big deal, either. That is why I specifically said 'Camelot'.

2 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

That's because the intention is to measure the relative geniality between player-knights. In other words, it's who among the player-knights is the most Genial, not who is most Genial overall. (In that case, an average player-knight would almost certainly be outshined in all but the smallest feasts.)

I don't mean to be difficult here, but WHY would a most genial knight amongst a group of, say, four 21-yr old freshly knighted knights get 'retweeted' 100 Glory worth, the same as one of them soloing a Small Giant? I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was the most genial knight of ALL the knights in a royal feast, but chances are that the most genial PK would on occasion be even BELOW the average. Why would he get talked about positively? This, to me and to use Atgxtg's example, is like crowning the highest scoring PK as the champion of a whole tournament even if the highest scoring PK made a real dog's breakfast of the thing.

[sirlarkins]

4 minutes ago, Morien said:

I don't mean to be difficult here, but WHY would a most genial knight amongst a group of, say, four 21-yr old freshly knighted knights get 'retweeted' 100 Glory worth, the same as one of them soloing a Small Giant? I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was the most genial knight of ALL the knights in a royal feast, but chances are that the most genial PK would on occasion be even BELOW the average. Why would he get talked about positively?

The intention here is to create an abstracted system that doesn't require a lot of bookkeeping and encourages players to compete against each other. For that to work, the potential Glory has to be worth their time and effort.

To me, as a GM, figuring out the "why" is part of the fun—and often quite easy to do after the fact by looking back on what cards were played, who the PK interacted with, what events transpired, etc. The Glory award is meant to represent a sort of aggregate boost in notoriety, the informal knock-on, magnifying effect of court gossip. That fresh-faced knight probably wasn't the most objectively genial person at the feast, sure, but he got everyone talking and therefore gets a bump in Glory (which, after all, is simply a mechanical expression of how much people talk or think about your character). Also recall that Glory needn't represent "positive" attention—just attention, period. Some of the Glory could be said to come from jealous gossips!

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

The intention here is to create an abstracted system that doesn't require a lot of bookkeeping and encourages players to compete against each other. For that to work, the potential Glory has to be worth their time and effort.

Yeah I can kinda see that point. There not much sense in spending a good part of a game session going through the feast for 5 glory. Part of the fun is the competition among players to win, in part to the big difference in glory  between first place and second. But, on the other hand, some sort of target NPK value to beat wouldn't require a lot of bookkeeping or discourage players from competing.  In fact it would probably help tpo promote more competition than is currently the case, as most PKs tend to stop competing once one character gets a 3-4 point lead. 

Quote

To me, as a GM, figuring out the "why" is part of the fun—and often quite easy to do after the fact by looking back on what cards were played, who the PK interacted with, what events transpired, etc. The Glory award is meant to represent a sort of aggregate boost in notoriety, the informal knock-on, magnifying effect of court gossip. That fresh-faced knight probably wasn't the most objectively genial person at the feast, sure, but he got everyone talking and therefore gets a bump in Glory (which, after all, is simply a mechanical expression of how much people talk or think about your character). Also recall that Glory needn't represent "positive" attention—just attention, period. Some of the Glory could be said to come from jealous gossips!

There is certainly some truth to all that. On the very first feast I ran, the very first PK to act, a pagan knight, was seated next to the Archbishop of Salisbury , and, thanks to a feast card, broke wind while the archbishop was speaking. Although it cost the PK some geniality and was obviously something of a social faux pas, it certainly broke the ice at the feast, and said PK eventually ended up with the most geniality. The archbishop was known as a stern, dour man, and a bit of a zealot, so the glory was probably some tacit approval of the PK stopping the archbishop from being a killjoy. 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Atgxtg

[sirlarkins]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

There is certainly some truth to all that. On the very first feast I ran, the very first PK to act, a pagan knight, was seated next to the Archbishop of Salisbury , and, thanks to a feast card, broke wind while the archbishop was speaking. Although it cost the PK some geniality and was obviously something of a social faux pas, it certainly broke the ice at the feast, and said PK eventually ended up with the most geniality. The archbishop was known as a stern, dour man, and a bit of a zealot, so the glory was probably some tactic approval of the PK stopping the archbishop from being a killjoy.

Perfect example! 😂

But to reiterate my point from a few posts up, if the Glory totals seem too much, or if you want to mess around with introducing geniality as a factor for Gamemaster characters, by all means mess around with it. (And I'd love to hear what you come up with in the latter case.) The system is quite adaptable, and what's presented in the book is simply how I like to run it and what works for my group. Feasts are meant to be fun after all, and their primary purpose is to drive role-playing and intrigue. Anything beyond that is open for tinkering, in my opinion. YPMV, and all that.

[Atgxtg]

Thank's. As it stands now it works and  it's fun, and those are important things, so I'll be careful and cautious with any changes. So far the only deliberate change I made was to increase the geniality for all PKs by 1 point per round when they went to a feast in Faerie. The idea being that as mortals they were intrinsically more interesting to the Fae than the other Fae.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

10 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

The intention here is to create an abstracted system that doesn't require a lot of bookkeeping and encourages players to compete against each other. For that to work, the potential Glory has to be worth their time and effort.

I see your point, I simply disagree that a) it is just the other PKs they are competing against (as shown above, it is easy to come up with a simple roll to get the NPKs' highest number to compete against), and b) that the Glory amount needs to be that high. As said before, the exact same arguments could be made for tournaments.

In my experience, the most rewarding thing in feasts is the RP itself, not the exact Glory gain (although naturally that is welcomed by the players). And based on what people have been saying, it sounds like the Book of Feasts is already successful in that by being fun.

I wonder if a better mechanism would be to apply multipliers as the PKs cross certain thresholds... For example:

Geniality > Length: x2

Geniality > 2 x Length: x5

Geniality > 3 x Length: x10 (replaces the Most Congenial reward)

This way, the PKs would be encouraged to try to rack up as many points as possible, but it would not depend on the number of PKs nor any other PK's total. Granted, this means that the PKs are not competing against one another, but I find that generally to be a good thing. Depends on your group, obviously.

[mandrill_one]

On 2/9/2019 at 8:56 AM, Morien said:

I wonder if a better mechanism would be to apply multipliers as the PKs cross certain thresholds... For example:

Geniality > Length: x2

Geniality > 2 x Length: x5

Geniality > 3 x Length: x10 (replaces the Most Congenial reward)

This way, the PKs would be encouraged to try to rack up as many points as possible, but it would not depend on the number of PKs nor any other PK's total. Granted, this means that the PKs are not competing against one another, but I find that generally to be a good thing. Depends on your group, obviously.

I think these suggestions and comments by Morien are interesting and easily applicable (as usual: thanks Morien!).

In particular, I tend to play with very few PKs (1 to 3), and of course a 1-PK party cannot compete internally, while competition within a 3-PK party is quite limited in scope... Moreover, I'm a big  fan of collaborative, non-competitive play (it was my main reason to start playing RPGs, back in 1984...).

Although not strictly needed, maybe some form of these suggestions could be included as alternate rules in future iterations of the book (hint, hint...)?

[Morien]

30 minutes ago, mandrill_one said:

I think these suggestions and comments by Morien are interesting and easily applicable (as usual: thanks Morien!).

In particular, I tend to play with very few PKs (1 to 3), and of course a 1-PK party cannot compete internally, while competition within a 3-PK party is quite limited in scope... Moreover, I'm a big  fan of collaborative, non-competitive play (it was my main reason to start playing RPGs, back in 1984...).

Although not strictly needed, maybe some form of these suggestions could be included as alternate rules in future iterations of the book (hint, hint...)?

You are quite welcome.

I do worry a bit that maybe the x10 is a bit too much, as you could get 70+ Glory for even a small feast and 160+ Glory for a Royal Feast. Perhaps x2, x3 and x5 would be better.

Or even:

Geniality < Length: x0. No Glory for you, you boor.

Geniality >= Length: x1

Geniality >= 2 x Length: x2

Geniality >= 3 x Length: x5 (replaces the Most Congenial reward)

I'd have to do some number crunching to see how that works, but admittedly I am thinking the x2, x3, x5 is probably the best compromise between rewarding at least some Glory and not making the Feasts too Glorious as a default. I don't mind PKs getting a couple of tens of Glory per scened Feast, it is the couple of hundred that is way too much for my taste.

[Atgxtg]

I've been thinking of something along the lines of the following:

The individual character award would be their geniality multiplied by the number of rounds. For instance, a character who earned 6 geniality at a medium feast would get 18 Glory (6x3=18).

The "Above the Salt" bonus would be five or ten times (I'm undecided as to which) the number of rounds.

The most genial character could just get a bonus equal to the above the salt award. 

This should work out to :

Small Feast: Typical Award 2, Above the Salt 20, Most Congenial 45

Medium Feast: Typical Award 5, Above the Salt 30, Most Congenial 75

Large Feast: Typical Award 8, Above the Salt 40, Most Congenial 90

Royal Feast: Typical Award 13, Above the Salt 50, Most Congenial 115

 

I think that would actually increase the typical awards a little, and hopefully make participation more important for those who don't sit above the salt or aren't the most genial, the way how even a fledgling PK can get some glory at a tournament. But, it would also keep the awards for the winners down below 100 in most cases. And the math wouldn't be too difficult. 

[Puckohue]

I have two questions from the Book of Feasts.

The first, rather nitpicking question. Page 6:

Quote

Any player character who is involuntarily seated in an area “below” a character with fewer Glory points must succeed at a Modest roll or lose 1 point of Honor.

I discovered this when trying to figure out where to seat the ladies. They often have significantly lower Glory but their "value" might warrant a seat near the salt, for example. Maybe "a character with fewer Glory points" should be rephrased?

Also: from page 7:

Quote

the Gamemaster should fill in the remaining blanks

After seating the eight PKs plus one accompanying wife and one potential wife, the King, the host, the Earl (and his wife maybe), and the two Special Guests noted in the campaign there really isn't any blanks for any other eligible ladies or other guests.

So naturally I'll add a few lines to cram them in, but how many listed names other than the PKs would you suggest? I haven't used the book in play yet, so I can't tell if there would be a problem with seating too many guests on the Feast Record.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Puckohue said:

I have two questions from the Book of Feasts.

The first, rather nitpicking question. Page 6:

I discovered this when trying to figure out where to seat the ladies. They often have significantly lower Glory but their "value" might warrant a seat near the salt, for example. Maybe "a character with fewer Glory points" should be rephrased?

I tend to run it more by Glory brackets rather than points. I just don't see someone with 4726 Glory points having a problem seating below someone with 4725 Glory points. So anything less than about 10% difference or a glory bracket is close enough. The numerical values are somewhat abstract. 

Otherwise every feast is going to turn into a major conflict over seating - as seating is assigned by APP Instead of Glory, amnd by RAW the pretty girl with no glory will end up sitting at a higher table than a visiting Countess!   

1 hour ago, Puckohue said:

Also: from page 7:

After seating the eight PKs plus one accompanying wife and one potential wife, the King, the host, the Earl (and his wife maybe), and the two Special Guests noted in the campaign there really isn't any blanks for any other eligible ladies or other guests.

So naturally I'll add a few lines to cram them in, but how many listed names other than the PKs would you suggest? I haven't used the book in play yet, so I can't tell if there would be a problem with seating too many guests on the Feast Record.

I'd suggest you give each player two NPCs to interact with, although you can have some of the NPCs seated between two PKs and serve double duty. You can always add more during later feasts. From what I've seen most players will want to draw and play feast cards instead, anyway.

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I tend to run it more by Glory brackets rather than points. I just don't see someone with 4726 Glory points having a problem seating below someone with 4725 Glory points. So anything less than about 10% difference or a glory bracket is close enough. The numerical values are somewhat abstract. 

I'd be tempted to use -500 Glory, since this would be the bracket where the skill bonus from Glory shifts. I was just going to use the Glory skill bonus, but that runs into problem with 4500 and 4499. Same problem if you go by Glory tiers, 3999 and 4000. Easier to have a flat number, and it saves me some issues as the GM, since I don't have to even get the correct hundred Glory, as long as I am in the ballpark. To be honest, I would be fine with -1000 Glory, too. 1000 is a nice round number.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Otherwise every feast is going to turn into a major conflict over seating - as seating is assigned by APP Instead of Glory, amnd by RAW the pretty girl with no glory will end up sitting at a higher table than a visiting Countess!   

I assumed it was Title first, then APP? So a Countess would always be seated higher than a Lady?

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes ago, Morien said:

I'd be tempted to use -500 Glory, since this would be the bracket where the skill bonus from Glory shifts. I was just going to use the Glory skill bonus, but that runs into problem with 4500 and 4499. Same problem if you go by Glory tiers, 3999 and 4000. Easier to have a flat number, and it saves me some issues as the GM, since I don't have to even get the correct hundred Glory, as long as I am in the ballpark. To be honest, I would be fine with -1000 Glory, too. 1000 is a nice round number.

That's why I go with 10%, or 1000 Glory. That way if somebody has 4500 glory he won't get upset if seated below someone with 4100 glory.

2 minutes ago, Morien said:

I assumed it was Title first, then APP? So a Countess would always be seated higher than a Lady?

It should be, but the way the rules work you roll APP (plus modifiers) to see where you sit. Critical = Above the Salt, Success= Near the Salt, Failure= Below the  Salt, and Fumble = Possibly on the Floor and a possible seating arrangement problem. So despite glory being such a big thing with seating the APP roll pretty much messes everything up. Yes nobles will get bonuses from fine clothes, fashion,  and jewelry, but dice are fickle. 

IMO, the APP roll doesn't really work quite right, but it's the only game mechanic that uses APP in the whole game other than the aging rules. 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

It should be, but the way the rules work you roll APP (plus modifiers) to see where you sit.

Surely that is for Knights, and the titled nobility would simply vault to the top. It would be a mortal insult to seat a visiting Baron Below the Salt or worse, on the Floor.

Also, I would not impose the Modest Roll / Honor Penalty if you are seated below a lower Glory but higher title individual. There is no shame in recognizing and accepting the societal hierarchy. Just like you wouldn't get all huffy that the Archbishop is sitting at a higher place than you are, even if you are a minor Baron in your own right.

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

Surely that is for Knights, and the titled nobility would simply vault to the top. It would be a mortal insult to seat a visiting Baron Below the Salt or worse, on the Floor.

I agree but that isn't specfically spelt out in the rules. Likewise someone with 16,000 glory should probably be up there too. Maybe +1 APP per glory bracket?

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

Also, I would not impose the Modest Roll / Honor Penalty if you are seated below a lower Glory but higher title individual. There is no shame in recognizing and accepting the societal hierarchy. Just like you wouldn't get all huffy that the Archbishop is sitting at a higher place than you are, even if you are a minor Baron in your own right.

Maybe. I'm just relating how it is handled in the Book of Feats. I find the Honor loss to be somewhat suspect too.If anything it would probably reflect poorly on the host if they didn't seat a guest properly. 

[sirlarkins]

52 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I agree but that isn't specfically spelt out in the rules.

From p. 5: "Before each feast, each Player-knight and lady in attendance must make a single unopposed APP roll." (Emphasis added.)

The APP roll is specifically intended for player-characters. Seating of Gamemaster characters is entirely at the Gamemaster's discretion.

Now if we're talking about titled Player-knights or ladies versus their non-titled companions, I agree that some sort of modification is certainly in order. Personally, if I had a titled player-character in my group, I wouldn't even have them roll. They're sitting Above the Salt whether they like it or not. If leaving it up to a roll, my solution, as I wrote in my designer's notes, is to replace the jewelry/fashion modifier to APP with a Glory bonus. Either +1/1,000 Glory (max +10) or by brackets, as suggested.

In fact, if I ever do a v2 of the feast system, I'll probably end up going with a modified system in which Glory modifies APP in some way (or perhaps even vice versa!). I do want to keep APP in the mix to some extent, however "unrealistic" it might feel, both because it makes it a vital statistic in the game (as mentioned) and also because it feels truer to the Aristotelian medieval mindset towards beauty.

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, sirlarkins said:

From p. 5: "Before each feast, each Player-knight and lady in attendance must make a single unopposed APP roll." (Emphasis added.)

The APP roll is specifically intended for player-characters. Seating of Gamemaster characters is entirely at the Gamemaster's discretion.

Now if we're talking about titled Player-knights or ladies versus their non-titled companions, I agree that some sort of modification is certainly in order. Personally, if I had a titled player-character in my group, I wouldn't even have them roll. They're sitting Above the Salt whether they like it or not. If leaving it up to a roll, my solution, as I wrote in my designer's notes, is to replace the jewelry/fashion modifier to APP with a Glory bonus. Either +1/1,000 Glory (max +10) or by brackets, as suggested.

Or titled PKs vs other titled PKs. I would expect that there are probably degrees of above the salt for the nobles. 

1 minute ago, sirlarkins said:

In fact, if I ever do a v2 of the feast system, I'll probably end up going with a modified system in which Glory modifies APP in some way (or perhaps even vice versa!). I do want to keep APP in the mix to some extent, however "unrealistic" it might feel, both because it makes it a vital statistic in the game (as mentioned) and also because it feels truer to the Aristotelian medieval mindset towards beauty.

I was thinking of averaging the two but that might lower the roll too much, maybe going with the glory classification would work best? Something along the lines of:

Unproven Knight (1,000–1,499 Glory) =+0
Respected Knight (1,500–2,999 Glory) = +1
Notable Knight (3,000–3,999 Glory) = +2

Renowned Knight (4,000–7,999 Glory) = +3
Famous Knight (8,000–15,999 Glory) = +4
Extraordinary Knight (16,000–31,999 Glory) = +5
Legendary Knight (32,000+ Glory) = +6

 

Officer to: (Count =+1, Duke = +2, King = +3, Pendragon = : +7)

Round Table Knight = +2

 

 

 

[sirlarkins]

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Or titled PKs vs other titled PKs.

How many titled PKs do you have in your games!? 😉

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, sirlarkins said:

How many titled PKs do you have in your games!? 😉

At present, none. I've got one officer (castellan) another potential officer (possible Deputy Marshall) but no titled PKs. But they are all hopeful. 

I did have a PK King (Pennath) once, but that was a few campaigns ago. 

But I figured the Book of the Estate and the Book of the Warlord had to apply to somebody.

 

[sirlarkins]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

But I figured the Book of the Estate and the Book of the Warlord had to apply to somebody.

Oh, for sure. But I tend to put this bit of advice from the core rulebook front and center in how I've treated titled P-Ks:

Quote

Since a character with even a minor barony is “set for life,” he has in effect “won” the game of King Arthur Pendragon. A baron is no longer compelled to follow the life of an adventuring knight errant. When a player character receives such a grant, he should retire for a while to learn about the land, pay off the relief, create an heir, and so on. As a lord, he can now grant knighthood to his own squires and other loyal men; for all intents and purposes, he enters the ranks of “semi-retired player-knights.”

So I don't think I've ever had more than one P-K of baron or higher rank in play at a single given time.

Edited April 4, 2019 by sirlarkins

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

Oh, for sure. But I tend to put this bit of advice from the core rulebook front and center in how I've treated titled P-Ks:

So I don't think I've ever had more than one P-K of baron or higher rank in play at a single given time.

I doubt many people have. I could see some sort of campaign where everybody was a count or something, but it would definitely be a variant.

 

Nobles aside, the way the Feasts works, it makes being seating below someone of lower glory a big thing, yet glory itself doesn't factor into the seating. This can become something of a honor trap for a PK with a low APP who has a lot more glory that the other PKs.  All my PKs went out and bought Jewelry, so all the gold and gemsmiths of the realm thank you. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

10 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

In fact, if I ever do a v2 of the feast system, I'll probably end up going with a modified system in which Glory modifies APP in some way (or perhaps even vice versa!). I do want to keep APP in the mix to some extent, however "unrealistic" it might feel, both because it makes it a vital statistic in the game (as mentioned) and also because it feels truer to the Aristotelian medieval mindset towards beauty.

APP + Glory/1000 could be standard, IMHO, and drop the jewelry thing which becomes an easy way to buy a critical. Titles trump this roll automatically.

Another use for the APP that came to mind... How about making a straight APP roll each turn, and if successful, allowing the Player draw two cards, discarding one? The pretty people get more social opportunities, etc? This also helps to make Ladies more powerful in Feasts, which would be good, IMHO.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Nobles aside, the way the Feasts works, it makes being seating below someone of lower glory a big thing, yet glory itself doesn't factor into the seating. This can become something of a honor trap for a PK with a low APP who has a lot more glory that the other PKs.  All my PKs went out and bought Jewelry, so all the gold and gemsmiths of the realm thank you. 

I think I would adopt a simple tiered system for triggering the Modest roll. (And while using APP+Glory/1000 for the roll.)

Anyone: If seated on the Floor.

Anyone with Glory 8000+: If seated Below the Salt.

Anyone with Glory 16000+: If not seated Above the Salt.

This way, I wouldn't have to worry about anything else than the PK's own Glory.

Of course, if I want to give the PKs more chances to show off their Modest, I might slash those threshold Glories to half. Especially since we seldom see anyone with 16000 Glory.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Morien

[Puckohue]

p. 7:

Quote

Gamemasters should also note the person with whom each Player-knight or lady is sharing a place setting

Does this have any game effects other than what the PKs do with it rp-wise?

Are the guests who share a place setting sitting next to each other or opposite one another?

p. 6:

Quote

Characters seated in adjacent areas are considered close enough to converse during the feast

As practically every PK (and most GMCs) will be Near or Below the salt, this means there's very little restriction on who's able to interact.

I was expecting the seating to have a little more impact on who you were able to interact with. Specifically, I'm expecting one PK to consider ceding his postition in order to be seated closer to the target of his flirtations. I also expected the seating to affect which GMCs the cards would affect.

Do you think I would break anything if I (within reason) restricted interaction to the same area of seating?

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Morien said:

APP + Glory/1000 could be standard,

Could be, although I think it has a greater chance , of the "

3 hours ago, Morien said:

 

IMHO, and drop the jewelry thing which becomes an easy way to buy a critical.

Note really. To buy a crtical the PK would have to have an APP or 29, and that's not all that common. For most people it does increase the chance of a critical but slightly. 

3 hours ago, Morien said:

Titles trump this roll automatically.

Apparently per Sirlakins, they do. Although if the high seating is a benefit or not is debatable. 

 

3 hours ago, Morien said:

Another use for the APP that came to mind... How about making a straight APP roll each turn, and if successful, allowing the Player draw two cards, discarding one? The pretty people get more social opportunities, etc? This also helps to make Ladies more powerful in Feasts, which would be good, IMHO.

Not a good idea. As it stands now the number of cards drawn is depending upon the PKs glory "band" So the more glorious knights draw more cards and choose which one to play. 

IMO to be fair, as I mentioned above it is really the only time APP gets used for much of anything in the game. By RAW APP Is pretty much a dump stat. Now I know somebody will chime in with"No it's not, it's important for ...." but when they do I hope they can show some example in the rule where APP actually factors into anything. It's basically here and the aging table. 

3 hours ago, Morien said:

I think I would adopt a simple tiered system for triggering the Modest roll. (And while using APP+Glory/1000 for the roll.)

Anyone: If seated on the Floor.

Anyone with Glory 8000+: If seated Below the Salt.

Anyone with Glory 16000+: If not seated Above the Salt.

This way, I wouldn't have to worry about anything else than the PK's own Glory.

Of course, if I want to give the PKs more chances to show off their Modest, I might slash those threshold Glories to half. Especially since we seldom see anyone with 16000 Glory.

That close what they they've got, now. The problem is that as written seating is determined sole by the APP roll. A 18 APP, 1000 new knight is more to get a good seating that a 5 APP 16000 glory hero. 

Now the 16K glory here will probably earn more geniality, as he will have more cards to pick from.