Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Morien said:

 any skill glory gained from them was equal to APP rather than flat 10 Glory.

The above would be a great idea for the Ladies at court stuff, and could make APP Much more useful in general. It's similar to your +(APP>10)x10% idea, but limited to social/courtly. glory.

 

7 hours ago, Morien said:

It worked out just fine. While the original plan was to have later raises of APP affect the skill, this proved to be a bit too much of a hassle to keep track, and we ditched that part. Instead, what your APP was at adulthood (20, in that campaign) gave you the skill base and after that, the effect of stats on skills was ignored.

One way to do it that might be easier would be to average the characters skill and their APP to get the value. SO if they had Courtesy 5 and APP 13 they would have a 9. It's basically a variation of your +APP/2 rule except it works on a sliding scale. Which makes APP more helpful at lower skill levels ,but less so as one become skilled. But it also means either calculating on the flry or tracking two values Skill/Chance. Although the latter would not be that difficult. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TerryTroll said:

No, I'm not that cruel, really we just like having a laugh at the player doing the voice. 

So as far as the gameplay is concerned, he can have Orate 15 same as anyone else, and roll 1d20 vs. his skill level to succeed? So he would actually succeed about 75% of the time?

Or is the player embracing the concept and not raising his Orate from its starting value (of 3, IIRC)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

One way to do it that might be easier would be to average the characters skill and their APP to get the value. SO if they had Courtesy 5 and APP 13 they would have a 9. It's basically a variation of your +APP/2 rule except it works on a sliding scale. Which makes APP more helpful at lower skill levels ,but less so as one become skilled. But it also means either calculating on the flry or tracking two values Skill/Chance. Although the latter would not be that difficult. 

It would be quite easy if one is using an excel sheet and even with pen and paper, it is not that difficult to scribble the (APP+skill)/2 next to the skill value. However, I would see an issue that this makes it almost impossible to have courtly skills that you can have higher than normal crit chance. It is already very difficult to raise skills above 20, and this would just stymie any character with APP less than 20 completely.

I admit that the +(APP/2) flat bonus suffers from the opposite fault, that it might be too 'easy' to get a critical, but since that tends to require that you have high APP and base skill 15+, I see that as a lesser problem. For instance, even if your APP is 20 (+5), which is pretty major commitment, you still need to get your skills up to 16 before you start critting more often. A more reasonable APP 16 requires raising courtly skills to 18. Granted, if you allow permanent APP bonuses from jewelry to up APP, then things change dramatically.

Also, if you count Glory bonuses in, then you will reach VERY high skill values very quickly. One reason why I hate those Glory Skill modifiers is that I think they come in way too quickly (already +1 at 1000 Glory which everyone has at least, and most knights have +2 or even +3) and they quickly swamp the actual skill. In our first campaign, no one cared to spend points on courtly skills, since they relied on their Glory to give such whopping bonuses. So I'd be happy to see Glory's influence lowered and APP's influence increased instead. Even making it Glory/2000 would help some, although I would be happy to even scale it by the location, against perceived 'norm': In Camelot, you really need Glory 8000+ to start shining, whereas having Glory 8000+ would probably mark you as one of the most glorious men in your home county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The above would be a great idea for the Ladies at court stuff, and could make APP Much more useful in general.

It is what we are using in our Pendragon campaign right now, too. Given that we usually have at least one session of extended Spring court with 6+ skill rolls, the difference of APP does give a small edge in Glory, too. It is not huge, but it helps a bit, and I could easily see a Lady character who is more APP & court-oriented getting closer to 100 Glory per year from that session alone, making her a bit more competitive with the Knight characters. Granted, we do use my homebrew rules for feasts, which also give opportunities to roll APP+(Glory/1000), and if you crit that, then you get have a special opportunity (suggested by the player), which has been used, amongst other things, to:

1.) Get a lover to finance a dovecote at the lady's manor.

2.) Gather a couple of young knights to join up as free* mercenaries for a campaign. (* that is, joined just for the looting opportunity)

3.) Get a position in a king's bodyguards by leveraging a prior relationship with the prince.

4.) Find a widow looking to get rid of her late husband's new armor at a hefty discount.

5.) Find a suitable* wife. (* better than the norm)

6.) Build up favor with the liege.

Given that Ladies tend to have a higher APP, it probably would compensate a bit the lower expected Glory. However, the introduction of +1 per £1 of jewelry would totally derail the mechanic, which is why it will not be showing up in our campaign. (However, special gifts of decorated scabbards or belts and such from the liege tend to be good for a small bonus at his own court, due to this obvious sign of favor.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Morien said:

 However, I would see an issue that this makes it almost impossible to have courtly skills that you can have higher than normal crit chance. It is already very difficult to raise skills above 20, and this would just stymie any character with APP less than 20 completely.

Yup.

3 minutes ago, Morien said:

I admit that the +(APP/2) flat bonus suffers from the opposite fault, that it might be too 'easy' to get a critical, but since that tends to require that you have high APP and base skill 15+, I see that as a lesser problem.

I see it as equally bad. Most ladies and some knights could get a high APP, and 15+ skill is easy if you want it. Most PKs benefit from having a good score in a non-combat skill.  

As an alterantive Isea:

What if instead of modifying the skill, APP modified the training cap? So instead of 15 it could be the greater of 15 or your APP. We could to the same with DEX and combat skills. So a lady with a 20 APP could train her courtly skills up to 20 instead of 15. That would allow high APP characters to get their courtly skills up to high level more rapidly, but wouldn't push people as quickly into the high crtical range. Even a character with a really high APP of 25 would have to spend years training up all those courtly skills to 25. Even a Guinevere, with a 40 APP would still have to spend the better part of a decade to  get even one courtly skill up to 40.

That would give ladies, with their higher APP scores, an advantage in courtly skills, without actually increasing those skill scores or requiring any sort of modifier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Morien said:

However, the introduction of +1 per £1 of jewelry would totally derail the mechanic,

I don't care for it much either. It's fine the way it is used in Feasts, and I can see it there. I don't like the idea of applying that universally though, because then you can basically buy a point of APP for £1. It takes the least useful Attribute in the game and devalues it even more.

I think the way the handle armies  in battle might be the better way to go. namely the nebulous "Superior Troops" bonus. The ladies who are he best dressed could get a flat modifier when applicable. That way, a £10 dress that might be worth a modifier at the Count's court might be seen as cheap and rustic, and be completely outclassed at the High King's Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Morien said:

Also, if you count Glory bonuses in, then you will reach VERY high skill values very quickly. One reason why I hate those Glory Skill modifiers is that I think they come in way too quickly (already +1 at 1000 Glory which everyone has at least, and most knights have +2 or even +3) and they quickly swamp the actual skill. In our first campaign, no one cared to spend points on courtly skills, since they relied on their Glory to give such whopping bonuses. So I'd be happy to see Glory's influence lowered and APP's influence increased instead. Even making it Glory/2000 would help some, although I would be happy to even scale it by the location, against perceived 'norm': In Camelot, you really need Glory 8000+ to start shining, whereas having Glory 8000+ would probably mark you as one of the most glorious men in your home county.

Maybe when courtly skills are opposed glory could be opposed and cancel out? So if Sir Bighshot has 5000 glory, and Sir No Name has 1000, then bigshot gets a +4 modifier and No Name gets nothing? That would prevent the autocrticals from extraordinary knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is quite a bit here to respond to, and @Atgxtg and @Morien are already far down the road of my own thinking. Let me jump lightly between points:

1. Glory for courtly skill use equal to APP instead of flat 10 is one of the simplest and most effective houserules and was floating around the Nocturnal forums for some time. I believe Morien originated it, but could well be mistaken. It is very high on my suggested fixes points, as it also penalizes lightly the use of APP as a dump stat.

 

2. Extra math is bad. Seek to avoid it whenever possible. (Note that I've been suggesting math for APP's effect on skills, but we can avoid that....)

 

3. Use of courtly skills should be structured as opposed checks most of the time. This creates the same type of dynamic as found in combat, and enables looking at bonuses and penalties in similar ways. For example, if you are attempting to impress the king, then you are doing so at the expense of someone else impressing him--this is a conflict that can be resolved, assuming you (GM) quickly identify the other party and their skill conditions. It will be rare to be making an unopposed skill check, and even then probably rolling the two-d10 method is appropriate, or assigning environment factors a target strength (the "doom and gloom" over your troops is skill 20 at demoralizing, roll opposed orate).

 

4. Atgxtg's suggestion of treating glory and dress/jewelry as superior positioning is spot on. You also take the idea to the logical conclusion by asking "what is the relative difference here" in glory. The same can be used for other social preparations: if you are going into social (influence) battle, you dress and prepare accordingly, rehearsing delivery of certain points if you can, and ensuring your outfit is appropriate to the venue and guests. Dressing too much can be as bad as too little. So within the game this can be arbitrated through skill checks by the staff, the choices of the PK/PL/NPC, and the results of rolls during the scene(s); result should be in bonuses to courtly skill checks within a range: "superior positioning" and "superior troops".

You would need to understand what the dress code is for the court/event you are going to attend. This comes from staff and experience, but may also use intrigue especially as the periods advance and the social festivities become more jaded and decadent (naked bathing dinners, anyone?).

 

5. Glory needs to be removed from the skill equation except for two things: use of recognize, and determining who has priority of place. Glory should continue to provide the +1 to other's chance to recognize you per 1000. Whomever has the most glory present naturally has precedent to act first in speaking or whatnot. However if Gawain has a 3 in orate, everyone will let him speak first but they will not necessarily be impressed--no matter how polite the applause is while quickly shifting on. Gawain--to follow the example further--speaks well because he is a courteous knight who dumped skill points into being so. He's glorious because he is courteous, not courteous because he's glorious. 

Short version: don't give a social skill bonus from glory. If you disagree, then doing math to figure out who has higher glory and how much, and using that as the skill modifier, would do.

 

6.  I very, very much like Atgxtg's suggestion of using APP to modify the natural skill cap. This solves a lot of problems and reduces the math to the Winter phase, where it belongs. There are three points where this could be applied: 

     a) The "skill up to 15" point allocation of 1d6 skill points. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (15) or (15+APP-10)", which would effectively add APP over 10 to the "easy" skill point buy range. If you want to make low APP a penalty, then use: "courtly skill up to (15+APP-10)", which will create a skill range from 7 (APP 10) to 15 (APP 10 average).

     b) The "skill up to 20" point allocation of 1 skill point. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (20) or (APP)". Or if you want low APP to be a penalty: (20+APP-10).

     c) A bonus/penalty to the check for skill advancement. This could be done as "roll skill with a modifier of (+10-APP)". The result would be a greater tendency for higher-APP characters to "fail" the end-of-year roll and gain a free point in checked skills. They will naturally advance faster, and spend less effort sinking training points into courtly skills that come "easy" to them thanks to natural gifts.

Personally I'd probably do all three.

 

7. You could substitute DEX for APP and apply the same logic to weapon skills.

 

--Khanwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

There is quite a bit here to respond to, and @Atgxtg and @Morien are already far down the road of my own thinking. Let me jump lightly between points:

1. Glory for courtly skill use equal to APP instead of flat 10 is one of the simplest and most effective houserules and was floating around the Nocturnal forums for some time. I believe Morien originated it, but could well be mistaken. It is very high on my suggested fixes points, as it also penalizes lightly the use of APP as a dump stat.

It's an easy change and gives a nice benefit.

 

Quote

3. Use of courtly skills should be structured as opposed checks most of the time. 

In many cases there will be someone else who wants what the player does or a rival who just doesn't want the player to get what they want, so it makes some sense. Maybe this could be simulated with a Rival score similar to a Passion that could be the default opposition to anything the PK does at court? The idea being that the higher up the rise on the social ladder, the more enemies they will make. 

Quote

4. Atgxtg's suggestion of treating glory and dress/jewelry as superior positioning is spot on. You also take the idea to the logical conclusion by asking "what is the relative difference here" in glory.

It helps to scale the costs to the court. maybe £1 in clothing or jewelry might impress at a lower court, but not at Camelot.

Quote

Glory needs to be removed from the skill equation except for two things: use of recognize, and determining who has priority of place.

I think if glory canceled out it could be kept. That way if two characters both had 10000 glory, the bonus would cancel out, but if one has 10000 and the other only 1000 the 10K guy would have a huge edge. Note that this would also make glory more important for ladies.

Higher station could also get a fix bonus that adds into this. 

BTW, in my games I base the glory bonus the same way glory bonus points are awarded, rounded down, than makes determiniung any relative modfier easy since you only need to look at the thousands.

Quote

     a) The "skill up to 15" point allocation of 1d6 skill points. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (15) or (15+APP-10)", which would effectively add APP over 10 to the "easy" skill point buy range.

You could simply that mathematically to Cap= APP+5. Or it that seems to high, then APP/2+10.

Quote

     c) A bonus/penalty to the check for skill advancement. This could be done as "roll skill with a modifier of (+10-APP)". The result would be a greater tendency for higher-APP characters to "fail" the end-of-year roll and gain a free point in checked skills. They will naturally advance faster, and spend less effort sinking training points into courtly skills that come "easy" to them thanks to natural gifts.

LOL! I think I mentioned that in a email.

But, that might be worth consideration as an alternate idea, instead of the cap (since it does the same thing only a little less so). The only problem I have with it is that it would make it too easy for a player to improve over 20, as someone with a +5 to their roll would improve 30% of the time. 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

A.

In many cases there will be someone else who wants what the player does or a rival who just doesn't want the player to get what they want, so it makes some sense. Maybe this could be simulated with a Rival score similar to a Passion that could be the default opposition to anything the PK does at court? The idea being that the higher up the rise on the social ladder, the more enemies they will make. 

It helps to scale the costs to the court. maybe £1 in clothing or jewelry might impress at a lower court, but not at Camelot.

B.

I think if glory canceled out it could be kept. That way if two characters both had 10000 glory, the bonus would cancel out, but if one has 10000 and the other only 1000 the 10K guy would have a huge edge. Note that this would also make glory more important for ladies.

Higher station could also get a fix bonus that adds into this. 

BTW, in my games I base the glory bonus the same way glory bonus points are awarded, rounded down, than makes determiniung any relative modfier easy since you only need to look at the thousands.

C.

You could simply that mathematically to Cap= APP+5. Or it that seems to high, then APP/2+10.

D.

LOL! I think I mentioned that in a email.

But, that might be worth consideration as an alternate idea, instead of the cap (since it does the same thing only a little less so). The only problem I have with it is that it would make it too easy for a player to improve over 20, as someone with a +5 to their roll would improve 30% of the time. 

 

[Letter reference codes added.]

A. Excellent idea: Rival(<name>/<court>) could represent a relationship that is definitely in professional conflict but not at the level of personal hatred. This would work for knights as well. Not as a passion, because of inspiration mechanics, but as a directed trait?

So you could have directed traits of "Rival(Salisbury): 15", "Rival(Sarum): 22" and "Rival(Camelot): 11". If you are in Salisbury you'll have to deal with your 15-point rival. If you go to Sarum you get both the 15 and 22-point ones, but if you go to Camelot you only have to put up with the 11. Unless your other rivals also travel, which is possible.

Note that if you have a mutual "Hatred(<that Sarum female dog>): 9" then Rival would add to it...? Am unsure here how best to make it work. Maybe just replace Rival with Hatred if it comes to that, as Amor flips to Love.

B. I know it's relatively straightforward to work out, however I still take issue with giving people skill bonuses from glory. There's something functionally wrong with that and it makes for a constant battle to track who is involved in the scene, what their glory totals should be, and adjust rolls accordingly. Glory already contributes its bonus point and provides social placement status, so it really doesn't need to muddy the waters further. YPMV.

C. Yeah but I wanted to show how the base evolved. Result is the same. 

D. Mentioned regarding DEX perhaps? Also in the thread. The three options do different things: 1st makes it easier to advance quickly through training, 2nd makes the training cap higher, and 3rd (affecting end-of-year improvement rolls) makes improvement through use easier. All of them facilitate skill scores higher than 20, by moving the point outward when the character is forced to stop spending yearly trains and start investing only glory awards. Being able to double-dip with usage improvement checks makes the rate faster--potentially--but again a point is reached where a 20 is needed to advance through use. 

If it's too easy for a moderately attractive character to advance courtly skill through use, then it can be adjusted. 

I've been considering for a long time using a similar mechanic for curse on a PK once he violates faerie custom (I think this is going to be inevitable); he'll get a -10 to Reckless improvement rolls during Winter phases....

 

--Khanwulf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

hopefully, those who are in the position of rule making are following this thread...

We're close enough to having a set of comprehensive modifications to apply to the APP/courtly game, if GMs wish to use it.

There's good value to be had, methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Khanwulf said:

There's good value to be had, methinks.

Oh, methinks the same.  Also thinking these could be mini-games that could be added or ignored by the gamemaster.  I think many would incorporate them into the rules, but by keeping them optional, the learning curve would not be as steep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

[Letter reference codes added.]

A. Excellent idea: Rival(<name>/<court>) could represent a relationship that is definitely in professional conflict but not at the level of personal hatred. This would work for knights as well. Not as a passion, because of inspiration mechanics, but as a directed trait?

I was thinking it could be it's own thing. It doesn't really work as a directed trait (which trait would it apply to?), but is more of a skill modifier. Maybe this could be a Court Intensity score of something and be based upon the average glory of the court involved?

Then wherever a player gets something out of court it gets a check and can increase. The PK can work to reduce it as well.

49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

B. I know it's relatively straightforward to work out, however I still take issue with giving people skill bonuses from glory. There's something functionally wrong with that and it makes for a constant battle to track who is involved in the scene, what their glory totals should be, and adjust rolls accordingly. Glory already contributes its bonus point and provides social placement status, so it really doesn't need to muddy the waters further. YPMV.

Well the alternate solution would be to do as I mentioned above. Treat it as the base resistance/intensity of the court. 

49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

D. Mentioned regarding DEX perhaps?

Yup. But the application was for a general rule and simplification. The idea would be to get rid of the long skill list of default values which rarely vary more than 2 points from each other. 

49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

 and 3rd (affecting end-of-year improvement rolls) makes improvement through use easier.

Well #3 originally was combined with the default skill value as well so it helped a bit with #1 and #2.

49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

All of them facilitate skill scores higher than 20, by moving the point outward when the character is forced to stop spending yearly trains and start investing only glory awards. Being able to double-dip with usage improvement checks makes the rate faster--potentially--but again a point is reached where a 20 is needed to advance through use. 

Yes but that point might be too high to matter.

49 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

If it's too easy for a moderately attractive character to advance courtly skill through use, then it can be adjusted. 

I'm not worried about moderately attractive character. I'm worried about players who roll 3d6+5 APP and get a 20 or better. Or who are half fae and roll 3d6+11.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Oh, methinks the same.  Also thinking these could be mini-games that could be added or ignored by the gamemaster.  I think many would incorporate them into the rules, but by keeping them optional, the learning curve would not be as steep.

Yeah, that's why a lot of this is brainstorming and going back and forth to try an anticipate the pitfalls so as to avoid causing more problems than it solves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

5. Glory needs to be removed from the skill equation except for two things: use of recognize, and determining who has priority of place.

Fully in agreement.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Or it that seems to high, then APP/2+10.

Definitely prefer this one. I am still not 100% on board with this mechanic, preferring more the starting skill boost, but it definitely has merit. I do like the fact that it doesn't start 'breaking the game' until past APP 20, as far as criticals are concerned, and if we make it so that the training cap past the 20 still needs to use the 1 point per year rules like Khanwulf suggested, that will slow things more than the bonus would. And you'd still have to spend points to get there, whereas the +(APP-11)/2 bonus would have been a free increase in all skills.

Having all the courtly skills that depend on charm or performance start at APP-8 or something like that might be an option, though: Courtesy, Orate, Flirting, Romance, Dancing, Play, Intrigue... (anything else?) That is seven skills (I don't subdivide Play since it would make an already weak skill even weaker) that you effectively get +7 skill points per point of APP, which is more than you get from a single yearly training. You could even make it that it caps at 15 (APP 23), but if your APP is higher than that, you will get +1 to ONE skill (up to 20) per point of APP, keeping up that equivalence with the yearly training. So it would be very beneficial to make a high APP character if you are planning on being a courtier anyway. This would also keep all the math in the chargen and no need to worry about it afterwards.

By contrast, the training limit increase basically quintuples the yearly training speed per two points of APP (assuming the above quote) for courtly skill. Instead of getting one skill to 16, you can get 5 of them to 16 (or 1d6+1, if you use that roll instead). So that would roughly double the speed per point of APP... meaning that it would be slightly more cost effective to raise your APP first and then your skills rather than just your skills. Assuming you'd be training all skills. For an individual skill, you'd benefit more from focusing on it. So yeah, that wouldn't be too overpowered, either. It might have a slightly counter-intuitive feel of people increasing their APP in their thirties, as they are reaching the 15 skill limit and racing to get their APP higher before the 35-year age limit hits, though. :P

3 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

[APP Glory instead of 10 Glory for courtly skills] I believe Morien originated it, but could well be mistaken.

As far as I recall, it was someone else who suggested it originally, but I forget who it was. :( I took it and ran with it, though. I don't think that it is a big enough bonus by itself to make APP worthwhile, but it is a nice side benefit and combined with some kind of a skill tweak like those being discussed above, it might be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I was thinking it could be it's own thing. It doesn't really work as a directed trait (which trait would it apply to?), but is more of a skill modifier. Maybe this could be a Court Intensity score of something and be based upon the average glory of the court involved?

Then wherever a player gets something out of court it gets a check and can increase. The PK can work to reduce it as well.

Well the alternate solution would be to do as I mentioned above. Treat it as the base resistance/intensity of the court. 

Yup. But the application was for a general rule and simplification. The idea would be to get rid of the long skill list of default values which rarely vary more than 2 points from each other. 

Well #3 originally was combined with the default skill value as well so it helped a bit with #1 and #2.

Yes but that point might be too high to matter.

I'm not worried about moderately attractive character. I'm worried about players who roll 3d6+5 APP and get a 20 or better. Or who are half fae and roll 3d6+11.

 

Ok. Let's work with this: assume that each court PKs are interacting with has a Court Intensity score based on its standing. Also assume there is a Court Size score, indicating how many glorious individuals there are within a given court. Let's say that Court Intensity is based on the the average glory across those Court Size individuals, and this derives both a base difficulty and  a modifier for your Rival directed trait (directed toward the Court Intensity).

Leave court attributes for now.... But we can assume that there are abstracted opponents in any court situation where one is not explicitly defined by the GM.

I've not made any suggestions regarding default skill values. But yes, generally I'd suggest basing weapons off DEX and courtly skills off APP, then modifying base by culture. 

I'm also thinking quite directly about the edge case of high APP, considering that a PL who chooses to go the "face" route is going to pump that attribute and maximize their advantages. Meanwhile, any mechanics needs to be reasonable enough at smaller scale that they have an effect... otherwise you're putting a lot of effort into "epic play" without making getting there worthwhile. (Specifically I'm quite sure that expanding APP mechanics will cause one player of mine to giggle madly while engineering an edge case extreme enough to cause eyebleed; there's a history with it.) 

So what do you do? How equivalent within their realms are a character with stupendous weapon skills (common PK goal) versus a character with stupendous face skills? (Less common.) We know how to throw challenges at the former--KAP is designed around that, but less so around the latter. If Eliwlod son of Madog son of Uthur, one of the "Three Golden-Tongued Knights" shows up with his crit-happy orate skill, "there [is] neither king nor lord to whom [he] came who did not listen to them; and whatever quest [he] sought, they wished for and obtained it, either willingly or unwillingly." What do you do? You haul out Gwalchmai son of Llew son of Cynfarch, or Drudwas son of Tryffin because they have comparable skill.

I'm just drawing from the Aurthian Triads for examples.

Point is that the tools are think for combat resolutions at high skills, and thin for courtly "combat". That's why giving flat bonuses from high APP is scary (that and it's mechanically overpowered). I'm fond of the direction suggested today: of permitting the Player to invest in courtly skills more easily, but still requiring that investment. 

 

--Khanwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Morien said:

Fully in agreement.

Definitely prefer this one. I am still not 100% on board with this mechanic, preferring more the starting skill boost, but it definitely has merit

I'm not entirely on board with it either, and I originated it. While I like a starting skill boost (or base), APP needs an in-play boost of some sort of else it becomes useless after chargen.  

What if instead of APP giving a + to rolls it APP worked to reduce the Courtly Intensity idea mentioned previously? APP, and glory could reduce the base Intensity from a given value down. That way APP would still help, but it wouldn't make up for a lack of skill nor would it alter the chance of a critical.

Court Intensity could  be set such as:

10: a small clan gathering or a landed knight's court

15: Estate Holder's Court

20: Tribal gathering, moot, or Count's Count

25: Baron's Court

30: King's Court

35: High King's Court

 

APP, and Glory could then act as modifiers, and any alliances or rivalries could as well. This could be set relative to any opposition.

 

7 minutes ago, Morien said:

By contrast, the training limit increase basically quintuples the yearly training speed per two points of APP (assuming the above quote) for courtly skill. Instead of getting one skill to 16, you can get 5 of them to 16 (or 1d6+1, if you use that roll instead).

Uh, no, it shouldn't The training speed would be the same. Only the cap would be higher. So if it took five years to get the desired skills to 15 before, it would still take 5 years to get them to 15 now. Unless you mean the time it takes to get to 20 which would improve somewhat, but quite be 5x the improvement. 

 

7 minutes ago, Morien said:

As far as I recall, it was someone else who suggested it originally, but I forget who it was. :( I took it and ran with it, though. I don't think that it is a big enough bonus by itself to make APP worthwhile, but it is a nice side benefit and combined with some kind of a skill tweak like those being discussed above, it might be enough.

I agree. By itself it is trivial. But with something else it becomes one more way to make APP worth something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Morien said:

Fully in agreement.

Definitely prefer this one. I am still not 100% on board with this mechanic, preferring more the starting skill boost, but it definitely has merit. I do like the fact that it doesn't start 'breaking the game' until past APP 20, as far as criticals are concerned, and if we make it so that the training cap past the 20 still needs to use the 1 point per year rules like Khanwulf suggested, that will slow things more than the bonus would. And you'd still have to spend points to get there, whereas the +(APP-11)/2 bonus would have been a free increase in all skills.

Having all the courtly skills that depend on charm or performance start at APP-8 or something like that might be an option, though: Courtesy, Orate, Flirting, Romance, Dancing, Play, Intrigue... (anything else?) That is seven skills (I don't subdivide Play since it would make an already weak skill even weaker) that you effectively get +7 skill points per point of APP, which is more than you get from a single yearly training. You could even make it that it caps at 15 (APP 23), but if your APP is higher than that, you will get +1 to ONE skill (up to 20) per point of APP, keeping up that equivalence with the yearly training. So it would be very beneficial to make a high APP character if you are planning on being a courtier anyway. This would also keep all the math in the chargen and no need to worry about it afterwards.

By contrast, the training limit increase basically quintuples the yearly training speed per two points of APP (assuming the above quote) for courtly skill. Instead of getting one skill to 16, you can get 5 of them to 16 (or 1d6+1, if you use that roll instead). So that would roughly double the speed per point of APP... meaning that it would be slightly more cost effective to raise your APP first and then your skills rather than just your skills. Assuming you'd be training all skills. For an individual skill, you'd benefit more from focusing on it. So yeah, that wouldn't be too overpowered, either. It might have a slightly counter-intuitive feel of people increasing their APP in their thirties, as they are reaching the 15 skill limit and racing to get their APP higher before the 35-year age limit hits, though. :P

As far as I recall, it was someone else who suggested it originally, but I forget who it was. :( I took it and ran with it, though. I don't think that it is a big enough bonus by itself to make APP worthwhile, but it is a nice side benefit and combined with some kind of a skill tweak like those being discussed above, it might be enough.

Morien you're exploring the starting skills issue as well as the skill training caps/rate in this. Would you do me the favor of breaking down how you would suggest treating the three elements of skill training caps? I'm not following your evaluation. We're close to some very specific treatment here and what do you recommend?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Uh, no, it shouldn't The training speed would be the same. Only the cap would be higher. So if it took five years to get the desired skills to 15 before, it would still take 5 years to get them to 15 now. Unless you mean the time it takes to get to 20 which would improve somewhat, but quite be 5x the improvement. 

Yes, I was looking at the latter. You are right, it still takes time to get to 15, during which you don't benefit from the higher APP at all, which is a problem.

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

While I like a starting skill boost (or base), APP needs an in-play boost of some sort of else it becomes useless after chargen.  

I don't see this as a problem. If APP influences your starting still, THAT is the in-play boost from APP that is felt throughout the rest of the game. Just because it is labelled a skill doesn't make it less so. Sure, this would mean that you wouldn't use yearly training nor Glory to boost your APP after chargen, since there would be no benefit, but I see that more as a feature than a bug: this is kinda comparable to SIZ in a sense that once you reach 21, it is all downhill from there, baby. Furthermore, you can combine it with the Court Glory = APP as an additional little side benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Khanwulf said:

Would you do me the favor of breaking down how you would suggest treating the three elements of skill training caps?

Sure, although as Atgxtg noted, my analysis on the training cap focused exclusively on 15+ skills, not taking into account the time to get to skill 15 in the first place, so it is a bit misleading.

5 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

   a) The "skill up to 15" point allocation of 1d6 skill points. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (15) or (15+APP-10)", which would effectively add APP over 10 to the "easy" skill point buy range. If you want to make low APP a penalty, then use: "courtly skill up to (15+APP-10)", which will create a skill range from 7 (APP 10) to 15 (APP 10 average).

     b) The "skill up to 20" point allocation of 1 skill point. This could be modified to "courtly skill up to the higher of (20) or (APP)". Or if you want low APP to be a penalty: (20+APP-10).

     c) A bonus/penalty to the check for skill advancement. This could be done as "roll skill with a modifier of (+10-APP)". The result would be a greater tendency for higher-APP characters to "fail" the end-of-year roll and gain a free point in checked skills. They will naturally advance faster, and spend less effort sinking training points into courtly skills that come "easy" to them thanks to natural gifts.

a) The training cap should be APP/2+10, up to 20.

b) The training cap should be APP/2+10.

c) This should NOT be adopted, for reasons Atgxtg pointed out (too easy to raise skill to over 20).

So someone with APP 30 would have a training cap of 25. This means that they could use the 1d6+1 skill points method to train up to 20, and then +1 skill method to train up to 25. Clear?

 

That being said, I am more in favor of the starting skill bonus. That way, the pretty people start with an edge, but someone can match that edge with time and determination. Also, it would require no modifications other than the seven or so skills in chargen, at the starting values, and then you'd be done. No rules modifications for Winter Phase.

Edited by Morien
corrected APP/20 to APP/2 in b)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Morien said:

Sure, although as Atgxtg noted, my analysis on the training cap focused exclusively on 15+ skills, not taking into account the time to get to skill 15 in the first place, so it is a bit misleading.

a) The training cap should be APP/2+10, up to 20.

b) The training cap should be APP/20+10.

c) This should NOT be adopted, for reasons Atgxtg pointed out (too easy to raise skill to over 20).

So someone with APP 30 would have a training cap of 25. This means that they could use the 1d6+1 skill points method to train up to 20, and then +1 skill method to train up to 25. Clear?

 

That being said, I am more in favor of the starting skill bonus. That way, the pretty people start with an edge, but someone can match that edge with time and determination. Also, it would require no modifications other than the seven or so skills in chargen, at the starting values, and then you'd be done. No rules modifications for Winter Phase.

For b. I think you mean APP/2+10. But very well, so the preferred idea is to push the benefits into chargen, glory gain from skill use and a compartmentalized court system. 

APP should, like size, cease to improve aside from glory points after 21. That's fair. However what benefit is there to raising APP after chargen? Because if you start in squire-land you still have growing to do and will gain considerably less for you attribute to skill conversion. 

It seems the investment appeal is rather lower. Also, making court difficulty easier is great except when you're not dealing with "court", but with a specific individual and their particular skills; that's the time you really want your skill to shine and solve the problem--whatever it is. 

Maybe it's not a problem, if there is a means to use skills to loop back and trigger trait checks versus APP or otherwise use it as a manipulation tool. Just pondering here... It's been a long week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

Yes, I was looking at the latter. You are right, it still takes time to get to 15, during which you don't benefit from the higher APP at all, which is a problem.

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

I don't see this as a problem.

I see it as a huge problem, as in I'd rather drop APP entirely first. You end up with a attribute that is useless once you get you character created so there is no reason to improve that attribute. And considering that it's the primary attribute for ladies the repercussions of this would pretty much kill off the idea of player character ladies. It's the only attribute that matters to them at all and it stops mattering 5 minutes into play. 

If we did that then we should do the same for hit points, damage, healing rate and move so we can screw everybody over evenly. If all the other attributes have in play boosts then so should APP.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

If APP influences your starting still, THAT is the in-play boost from APP that is felt throughout the rest of the game.

What a complete waste of points. Why would aknight bother to spend any of his point into APP when he can put them into SIZ or CON and get long term benefits that far outweight a couple of skill points at the low end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

APP should, like size, cease to improve aside from glory points after 21. That's fair. However what benefit is there to raising APP after chargen? Because if you start in squire-land you still have growing to do and will gain considerably less for you attribute to skill conversion. 

Not to ladies.  I think their cap should be raised to at least the max roll on 3d6+5, or 23. 

Yes, that's why I liked raising the training cap. It gives them a longer term bonus. Plus it will limit the effects of a pretty face for a starting PK vs an experienced one. 

But I think I prefer the idea of APP reducing the difficulty at court.

 

57 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

It seems the investment appeal is rather lower. Also, making court difficulty easier is great except when you're not dealing with "court", but with a specific individual and their particular skills; that's the time you really want your skill to shine and solve the problem--whatever it is. 

Yeah, but if at court most things probably could involve more than one person. Even if your trying to influence the King you could call in favors from other people at court to help sway him. 

About the only courtly skills I don't see as being affected that way are compose, play, and maybe Orate. Everything else seems to be interactive in nature.. 

57 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

Maybe it's not a problem, if there is a means to use skills to loop back and trigger trait checks versus APP or otherwise use it as a manipulation tool. Just pondering here... It's been a long week.

Yeah. I think we all want about the same thing, a way to make APP more useful as well as away to make the non-combat skills worth bothering with.  The solution to the latter is in adding conflict and some sort of rewards/consequences to courtly actions to give those actions meaning. The way to do the former is tied to the latter. Once we see just what can be gained from the latter we will have a better idea as to the merits of adjusting the former.

For example, and I'm not advocating this, but if APP and Glory both added to all courtly skills all the time,  the immediate effects would look ludicrous, with characters get critical on courtly skill rolls all the time, the lon term effects to game play would be minimal, because all the import stuff it the game happens elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What a complete waste of points. Why would aknight bother to spend any of his point into APP when he can put them into SIZ or CON and get long term benefits that far outweight a couple of skill points at the low end?

Let's say that I want to be the consummate courtier, master of all courtly skills. I have 60 points to spend on attributes. I can either prioritize APP, or I can prioritize the skills.

a.) I put APP 18, since that is as high as the GM lets me to go. This means that my starting value in those 7 skills is 10 instead of 2 (APP-8). This is a total of 7*8 = 56 skill points (= 11+ yearly trainings), for the investment of 8 stat points (= 8 yearly trainings). In addition, I will gain x1.8 glory for the use of these skills under the APP Glory rule. I can still use the misc picks or the 10 additional skill points to improve my courtly skills or other skills for that matter (Horsemanship 15, Lance 15?). Also, I have the 15 skill (Sword?) and 3x10 skill choices to make (Awareness, Recognize, Falconry?). Or patch up my other attributes with misc points (so I am only 4 points in the hole). Naturally, SIZ is already maxed out.

b.) I prioritize the skills, leaving APP 10. If I use all the skill choices to courtly skills, then yes, I only need 3 other skills, which would cost me only 24 skill points (10 skill points + 3 picks). However, this would leave my combat skills rather poor (final pick Sword 15, Lance 11).

B would have higher STR and CON in the beginning, but not nearly the breadth of skills that A has. And if B tries to catch up with A, it would take B another 9 points (2 years) for combat skills, and about 20 points (4.5 years) for Awareness, Recognize and Falconry. Meanwhile, A needs a year to patch up the one courtly skill to 15, and 4 years to catch up in STR & CON, while enjoying the extra Glory from Court, too. In short, A has 1.5 years more skills/stats in the end.

If you add Fashion in there, too, it will make APP even better starting choice, adding an additional skill you get with APP. I forgot about that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...