Alternate Chargen Test Challenge

[Cornelius]

On 7/22/2019 at 11:06 AM, Morien said:

The difference between DEX 16 and DEX 10 is 6 stat points = -1d6 in damage and -3 hitpoints, assuming +3 SIZ and +3 STR. So yeah, the DEX character squire would likely have only 4d6 and skill defaults 8, compared to someone who prioritized DMG with damage of 5d6 and skill defaults of 5. However, the primary weapon skill would likely be 10+ for both, as it would be a priority for both. Where the DEX 16 guy benefits is that he can afford to be a reasonably good at Horsemanship, Lance and Sword right from the start, whereas the DEX 10 guy would be forced to make some choices, as he wouldn't have enough skill points in the beginning to be good at all three. In fact, he would need pretty much all of his points just to reach the default level of the DEX 16 guy.

But isn't that what we want? That there would be some point in making a DEX guy instead of a SIZ guy?

 

Just to put in my 2c:

I use the following houserule: Instead of having a standard shield bonus on a partial success you need to succeed in a DEX roll (not modified) to gain the 6 point defense of a shield. This means that you will need a reasonable DEX score to get the bonus.

[Khanwulf]

10 hours ago, Morien said:

So yeah, without running this through some example cases, my back-of-the-envelope calculation is implying that this would make DEX too powerful. The counterargument could be that he would be working with -1d6 damage in comparison most of this time, but on the other hand, having Skill 20 vs. 16 ought to balance this out somewhat.

 

The summary from the previous thread(s) matches this conclusion: if you use DEX/APP to raise the upper bound on spending skill training points then you quickly get into crit range which on measure is a benefit over and above the extra damage die of STR/SIZ. Essentially it makes you Sir Awesome, as opposed to skill floor increases that make you Sir Well-Rounded.

There was a full list of suggested skill and stat mappings, earlier.

 

--Khanwulf

[tenchi2a]

The APP means nothing idea I totally disagree with, but each to their own.

As I have said before APP is directly responsible for Distinctive Features.

If you fail to use them in your game then that's a fault in your game not the mechanics.

When I play I uses them all the time as skill modifiers. 

I divide the chart into positive and negative Distinctive Features.

APP Value                  No. of Features             Results
5–6                                          3                         3 negative features
7–9                                          2                         2  negative features
10–12                                      1                         1 positive (12) or negative features (10) with (11) being players choice.
13–16                                      2                         2 positive features
17+                                           3                         3 positive features

Each features provides a -/+5 modifier to skills it would logically effect as determent by the GM, and the effects stack if applicable.

So quickly without any changes to the rules APP has a major effect on skills.

[Morien]

18 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Each features provides a -/+5 modifier to skills it would logically effect as determent by the GM, and the effects stack if applicable. 

So quickly without any changes to the rules APP has a major effect on skills.

Since this is 'without any changes to the rules', could you quote the book and the page where the above +-5 to skill rule is stated?

I am looking at KAP 5.2, p. 37, and it explicitly states also this: "A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so." While I would agree that it would be better to mandate that low APP requires negative features, as in your table, it is explicitly contradicted in the text. Also, there is no mention of the +-5 to skills.

If there would be such an official rule, then you would hear much less bitching from people like me saying that APP is useless, from rules standpoint.

What you have presented is a houserule that tries to address this lack in the official rules. So it is a change as well.

There has been earlier suggestions in this forum and the earlier Nocturnal one of an APP bonus to Courtly skills (effectively similar to what you are suggesting, save that it is a straight calculation from APP score rather than pushing it through the distinctive feature and requiring the GM to make a judgement call which skill it boosts and when), but the problem with such bonuses, especially when they stack with Glory bonuses, is that they make rolling a critical much too easy. Giving a higher default instead avoids this problem neatly.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Morien

[tenchi2a]

24 minutes ago, Morien said:

Since this is 'without any changes to the rules', could you quote the book and the page where the above +-5 to skill rule is stated?

I am looking at KAP 5.2, p. 37, and it explicitly states also this: "A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so." While I would agree that it would be better to mandate that low APP requires negative features, as in your table, it is explicitly contradicted in the text. Also, there is no mention of the +-5 to skills.

If there would be such an official rule, then you would hear much less bitching from people like me saying that APP is useless, from rules standpoint.

What you have presented is a houserule that tries to address this lack in the official rules. So it is a change as well.

There has been earlier suggestions in this forum and the earlier Nocturnal one of an APP bonus to Courtly skills (effectively similar to what you are suggesting, save that it is a straight calculation from APP score rather than pushing it through the distinctive feature and requiring the GM to make a judgement call which skill it boosts and when), but the problem with such bonuses, especially when they stack with Glory bonuses, is that they make rolling a critical much too easy. Giving a higher default instead avoids this problem neatly.

I use the highlighted part of that statement

And the fact that the section on Modifiers on page pg.114

Don't give any set modifiers only ranges allowing GM's to apply them as needed.

So while you are right that it no ways states that what I do is a rule.

 The rules cover it so I would not call it a house rule.

And to me that was the point of why the modifier section was written as it was to allow GMs freedom to use them how they liked.

[Hzark10]

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

So while you are right that it no ways states that what I do is a rule.

 The rules cover it so I would not call it a house rule.

Not trying to jump into the middle here, but if your campaign varies from another campaign, the rule: YPMV has come into play.  These little tidbits are where one gm differs than another. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but most gm's would say that if you are using a rule, and they are not, it is a house rule.  Your comments are a perfect example of this. However, these need to be noted so any new players are aware of them and prevent them from being blindsided.  

I use my own set of exceptions and additions to the standard ruleset. Morien has his, and so on.  We should be aware of them and HOW they affect the game. Do they help create an unfair advantage or change the rules to a great exent? Do they simply add color?  Nothing wrong, but it should be noted.

[tenchi2a]

8 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Not trying to jump into the middle here, but if your campaign varies from another campaign, the rule: YPMV has come into play.  These little tidbits are where one gm differs than another. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but most gm's would say that if you are using a rule, and they are not, it is a house rule.  Your comments are a perfect example of this. However, these need to be noted so any new players are aware of them and prevent them from being blindsided.  

I use my own set of exceptions and additions to the standard ruleset. Morien has his, and so on.  We should be aware of them and HOW they affect the game. Do they help create an unfair advantage or change the rules to a great exent? Do they simply add color?  Nothing wrong, but it should be noted.

To me this comes down to your definition of a House Rule.

The to ways one can define 

1. Any rules that come directly out of the RAW but are not specifically stated can be called HR. Such as ruling that during a Hunting expedition, since the knight is using his favorite dog he gets a +5.(I don't agree with this)

2. Changes to the RAW to facilitate preferences at a certain gaming table. Such as, changing the initiative rules so that instead of it being a roll it is by set attributes. (This is my view of a HR) P.S. not directly related to KAP 5.2 but something that I did see a GM do in another game.

To me what I have written doesn't  qualify as one because they fit the RAW.

Rule as Written.

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP.

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances.

So to my view of House Rules this doesn't qualify, but if you disagree forum readers already have your warning.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

The APP means nothing idea I totally disagree with, but each to their own.

So let's settle things and prove it one way or the other.

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

As I have said before APP is directly responsible for Distinctive Features.

Which also have no game use. Someone could have a winning smile or broken teeth, both are distinctive features. Neither have any real effect in game pay. Certianly not to the same extent as a single point of SIZ.

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

If you fail to use them in your game then that's a fault in your game not the mechanics.

No, it's a problem with the mechanics, since there aren't any to cover their use. If if were up to the GM and players to implement these things" Somehow" then why do we need stats for armor? Or why bother with traits and passions, something that the vast majority of RPGs do leave to role playing. 

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

When I play I uses them all the time as skill modifiers. 

I divide the chart into positive and negative Distinctive Features.

APP Value                  No. of Features             Results
5–6                                          3                         3 negative features
7–9                                          2                         2  negative features
10–12                                      1                         1 positive (12) or negative features (10) with (11) being players choice.
13–16                                      2                         2 positive features
17+                                           3                         3 positive features

Each features provides a -/+5 modifier to skills it would logically effect as determent by the GM, and the effects stack if applicable.

So quickly without any changes to the rules APP has a major effect on skills.

What are you smoking?

Apply a +/-5 modifier to skills for features based off of APP is a change to the rules.

[Atgxtg]

On 7/23/2019 at 1:47 PM, Khanwulf said:

 

PS. Thanks Atgxtg for reviving the discussion. Looks like the board is more active now and brings more points of view. 

Glad you're happy. That my intention when I created this thread.. I just wanted to test out what had been the consensus solution to the poor value to APP and DEX, and I do want to thank Morien for actually doing so. One again, I don't mind revising this topic and see what we can do about things, I just didn't expect it here.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 7/23/2019 at 5:22 PM, jeffjerwin said:

Tristram did the whole outlaw in the forest thing, so it's not entirely true that no knights do this sort of thing. There are some other 'outlaw-knights' in folklore besides him (Fulk Fitzwarin comes to mind). Mainly the game has not supported this sort of thing, but we shouldn't reject these stories as inauthentic, because they assuredly are.

Tristam also was arguably the second or third best knight of the realm and no slouch in the STR, SIZ and CON departments, and he didn't spend most of his career doing so. He spent much more time riding around acting like a typical Arthurian knight.

 

Also lets look at Balance, Climb, Jump, Sneak,and Throw. Mostly useless for a knight. 

Balance: Why would a knight place himself in a precarious spot where he could topple over? This is really one of those things that gets forced on a knight.Like maybe some caslte where there is a custom of visiting knights having to walk a tighrope over lions on something. Nothing that should happen that often.

Climb: Much the same. The most obvious use would probably be in a siege, and frankly, climbing the walls is footman's work- and knights have ladders for that anyway.

Jump: Another rather if ever used skill. 

Sneak: Is mostly dishonorable.

Throw: How often does this come up. And when it is so vital to get it right the first time? 

 

Most these "skills" are for situations that knights will generally try to avoid, and usually should be able to. 

 

 

 

  TO all of you who've played or ran this game and use the default method for generating attributes, how many of you have or see player knights for whom DEX or APP were their highest attribute? How many see PKS with low DEX and APP so that the players can get higher SIZ and CON scores?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tenchi2a]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

So let's settle things and prove it one way or the other.

I have not once insulted you in this forum and I expect the same respect form you. If you don't agree with what I have said that is your right, but insults to me prove you have not true valid arguments. See "What are you smoking?" below.

Quote

Which also have no game use. Someone could have a winning smile or broken teeth, both are distinctive features. Neither have any real effect in game pay. Certianly not to the same extent as a single point of SIZ.

I have explained my position on this if you only see your ideas as valid that's your prerogative.

It's not my job to convince you otherwise

Quote

No, it's a problem with the mechanics, since there aren't any to cover their use. If if were up to the GM and players to implement these things" Somehow" then why do we need stats for armor? Or why bother with traits and passions, something that the vast majority of RPGs do leave to role playing. 

I have shown how provided rules within the current rules as written can easily handle this but since it is not written as this its what you do directly and to the letter in the rule you brush it off as not the rule. If you need a in-dept chart with all the modifiers in the game and can't use the open modifier system provided in the game that a failing on your part not the games. As an GM you should know the rule are a tool kit not a tech manual, so if the rules don't list specific modifier in the example it does not mean it is not part of the rules. If you went by that logic only Falconry and Awareness could ever be modified.

Quote

What are you smoking?

Apply a +/-5 modifier to skills for features based off of APP is a change to the rules.

I have shown that while it doesn't give a step-by-step instructions to do what I suggest the rule that make it up are all present in the RAW.  

Rule as Written.

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features pg. 37

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. pg.37

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. pg.114

4. These modifiers can be anything that fits the roll. pg.144

Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you were being passionate about your ideas, but Next time it will be a report not a response if you insult me again.

Edited July 27, 2019 by tenchi2a

[jeffjerwin]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Also lets look at Balance, Climb, Jump, Sneak,and Throw. Mostly useless for a knight. 

Balance: Why would a knight place himself in a precarious spot where he could topple over? This is really one of those things that gets forced on a knight.Like maybe some caslte where there is a custom of visiting knights having to walk a tighrope over lions on something. Nothing that should happen that often.

Climb: Much the same. The most obvious use would probably be in a siege, and frankly, climbing the walls is footman's work- and knights have ladders for that anyway.

Jump: Another rather if ever used skill. 

[snip]

Most these "skills" are for situations that knights will generally try to avoid, and usually should be able to. 

I've been researching Lancelot -re-reading Malory's Book VI currently - and he uses all of these skills in his adventures. "Nothing that should happen that often" seems to happen all the time to him. He and Gawaine are both required to cross very narrow bridges over chasms (at Gorre and at the Grail Castle), climb trees (Gawaine in L'Aitre Perilleux and Lancelot when he fetches the sparrow hawk for Phelot's lady), jump out of windows and climb up to them (Gorre and Morgan's Tower), and so forth.

I think these skills are crucial for the 'high-adventure'/fantastic/fairy element in the romances. Of course these are usually solo adventures, which slants things. Obviously the GM was hoping to challenge the player...

The fact that KAP doesn't have a lot of physical clambering up and down things and acrobatics is actually a discrepancy between the game and the literature.

Here are some generic scenarios that could feature these things:

1. Rescuing someone from a castle where you are heavily outnumbered, or escaping (unarmed!) from such a castle. Fighting the entire garrison is Valorous, but it is also Stupid.

2. Entering an Otherworldly palace or fortress with a slender or broken bridge (so many instances). Traditionally it seems the homes of fairies and enchantresses are guarded by precarious bridges with monsters - giants, lions, or dragons... and if you aren't escaping from or wooing such figures, why are you a knight errant anyway?

3. Climbing out of a cave you have been trapped in by a treacherous companion (see Torec for an excellent example)

4. Entering a swiftly revolving castle... a bit like a video game, but there are multiple examples of this, as well as gates that revolve like a mill-wheel.

Of course, there's also no telling what sort of dangerous and foolhardy things a lady love could demand as well.

[Morien]

6 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features pg. 37 

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. pg.37

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. pg.114 

4. These modifiers can be anything that fits the roll. pg.144

Emphasis mine. Also, rules EXPLICITLY state the opposite: "...not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP..." It then offers an OPTION for the GM to rule otherwise. But the default is clearly that even low APP char can have 'positive' Distinctive Features, and that throws the whole argument out. In fact, if you read just before that, it seems that the main idea behind Distinctive Features is to: "allow for objective differences between characters with the same numerical value." Whereas: "A character’s APP measures his or her relative appearance, determining whether a character is handsome, beautiful, or ugly." Emphasis again mine, no mention of Distinctive Features there. Also, what happens when APP is increased through the use of Fashion (p. 102) or jewelry (from Book of the Feast)? Do you suddenly pick up new Distinctive Features? Or is the APP increase useless?

Then there is handwaving going on between your 2. and 3. While I do agree that p. 114 situational modifiers are something that a GM can use to fit any which situation they want, how would you assign an APP-based modifier for a guy whose Distinctive features are Burly (Body), Curly Hair and Bushy Eyebrows? Those are all neutral features, picked from the examples in p. 37. In fact, most of those examples appear neutral, which makes sense if they are intended to just individualize people rather than measure their attractiveness. Furthermore, the only Skill that I can find on a quick look that even mentions APP-based modifiers is Flirting, and it says: "The Gamemaster may wish to impose a modifier on the Flirting Skill of any character with unusually high or low APP." Emphasis again mine. Note that it says NOTHING about Distinctive Features.

This is why I am arguing that what you have is a houserule. Sure, you can impose whatever modifiers you like in the rules, but you have jumped over a couple of gaps to claim that it is actually Rules As Written while the rules themselves sometimes even contradict you.

 

If Greg had wanted to write Distinctive Features so that they would give bonuses and minuses to different skills, he could have. He didn't. But let's imagine for a moment that he had. Let's imagine that he would have written exactly what you did. At APP 11 I get one positive DF. For 2 points more I get a second one. Then I need to spend 4 points more to get a third. In short, for 6 points I get 2 DFs. 6 points is +1d6 in damage. Do the DF apply in several skills or only one each?

What about balance between the DFs themselves? Can I simply claim 'Charismatic' as my DF and then argue that it works in every social situation? Charming Accent that gives me +5 whenever I am speaking? It is charming, after all. What about the poor bastard who chose braided beard? When does that come into play? How about a facial expression? Is my face permanently fixed in a sneer even when I am trying to be friendly, if I have a low APP?

It is a mess. It would be much easier and cleaner to just say you get a bonus or penalty to your social skills equal to (APP-10)/2, and leave it at that. But as I have already stated, there are good reasons why such a bonus is a bad idea, and why the DEX/APP default fixes more things than it breaks.

[Morien]

5 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Here are some generic scenarios that could feature these things:

Yes, but I think Atgxtg's point is that SIZ, STR and CON come up pretty much always, since they are so useful in a fight, and fights happen pretty much in every session. Those Faerie castles with DEX-roll bridges probably not.

Also, if you are climbing up from a cave or up a tree to collect a bird, you can pretty much roll until you succeed. Sure, you might take some damage while doing so, but the chances are good that even with a DEX 10, you would succeed soon enough. But try playing a SIZ 10 knight and you are in a world of hurt. Especially if your STR is 10, too.

Compare:

Knight A: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 18, CON 14, APP 10

Knight B: SIZ 10, DEX 18, STR 10, CON 14, APP 18

When these knights meet each other in a duel, Knight B struggles to get through Knight A's basic chainmail armor, and if A gets his shield, it is almost useless. B needs to roll his maximum damage to even trigger a knockdown check. Whereas when A hits B, the average damage results in an automatic knockdown for B, despite DEX 18. Also, note that if they are on horseback (the default for knights, usually), then Horsemanship is used, not DEX.

The only skill where APP is mentioned as a modifier is Flirting and even there 'may' is used. So that is the use of those 8 extra points in APP. As for DEX, both knights have the same Movement, and while B is a better climber, I would argue that it would come up way less often, and in less dire situation, than combat.

That is what the argument is about here. Since all attributes come from the same pool, it is unbalanced that some attributes are next to useless, while others are essential.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Morien

[jeffjerwin]

15 hours ago, Morien said:

Yes, but I think Atgxtg's point is that SIZ, STR and CON come up pretty much always, since they are so useful in a fight, and fights happen pretty much in every session. Those Faerie castles with DEX-roll bridges probably not.

Also, if you are climbing up from a cave or up a tree to collect a bird, you can pretty much roll until you succeed. Sure, you might take some damage while doing so, but the chances are good that even with a DEX 10, you would succeed soon enough. But try playing a SIZ 10 knight and you are in a world of hurt. Especially if your STR is 10, too.

[snip]

That is what the argument is about here. Since all attributes come from the same pool, it is unbalanced that some attributes are next to useless, while others are essential.

It really doesn't matter that your STR is 16 if you fall 60 feet.

Mechanically, yes, fights are in 90% of all scenarios. Here is where the story diverges from the rules: Lancelot is far more worried about crossing a bridge less than a foot wide than he is fighting mortal enemies. It is in fact a major source of the drama in the poem. His killing all of Meleagant's goons, less so. But as long as doing such feats remains a part of the stories, DEX has to stay. I suspect that a decent STR and SIZ is all one would need to be a run-of-the-mill RTK. Anyone wanting play a member of the elite (or really, do anything really interesting) has to have a character capable of more than fighting.

In terms of APP 16 there are some good rules in Paladin for seducing strange women using one's APP, particularly the daughters of Pagan adversaries whilst one is imprisoned... this is a Romance cliche, of course, but it's valid.

[Atgxtg]

On 7/27/2019 at 1:54 PM, jeffjerwin said:

The fact that KAP doesn't have a lot of physical clambering up and down things and acrobatics is actually a discrepancy between the game and the literature.

Well, then three things.

1. If this is a discrepancy between the game and the literature then DEX couldn't have been included to handle these situations, because it is a discrepancy; and

2. The game (especially the Romance adventures) should better emulate the literature; and.

3. If these skills are that important and come up that often, maybe they should be skills then instead of an attribute? As an attribute it becomes something that the Knight can't do much about. While an inexperienced knight could go from being an unskilled swordman to a master swordsman thought his career, it highly unlikely that a low DEX character will become a high DEX one. But I doubt they do come up all that often for most knights. 

 

On 7/27/2019 at 1:54 PM, jeffjerwin said:

Here are some generic scenarios that could feature these things:

1. Rescuing someone from a castle where you are heavily outnumbered, or escaping (unarmed!) from such a castle. Fighting the entire garrison is Valorous, but it is also Stupid.

I don't really see DEX and stealth being that much of an option here for a knight. It's probably the smart thing to do, but it is somewhat questionable behavior.

On 7/27/2019 at 1:54 PM, jeffjerwin said:

2. Entering an Otherworldly palace or fortress with a slender or broken bridge (so many instances). Traditionally it seems the homes of fairies and enchantresses are guarded by precarious bridges with monsters - giants, lions, or dragons... and if you aren't escaping from or wooing such figures, why are you a knight errant anyway?

True. I doubt that happens much to most knights though. Yes Lancelot and Gawaine have lots of fantastic adventures, but most knights/PKs probably will have such an adventure maybe once in their career, if that. 

On 7/27/2019 at 1:54 PM, jeffjerwin said:

3. Climbing out of a cave you have been trapped in by a treacherous companion (see Torec for an excellent example)

Okay, how often is that going to happen? Just how many knights have to climb out of a cave in the literature? 

On 7/27/2019 at 1:54 PM, jeffjerwin said:

4. Entering a swiftly revolving castle... a bit like a video game, but there are multiple examples of this, as well as gates that revolve like a mill-wheel.

Of course, there's also no telling what sort of dangerous and foolhardy things a lady love could demand as well.

Yes, but again does this happen often enough for a player to need to factor for it during chargen? And if if does, what else can the player do about it?  From an RPGing viewpoint it seems a lot like the Siege Perilious, only without the warning. Essentially DEX is acting much like a Trait. 

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

It really doesn't matter that your STR is 16 if you fall 60 feet.

No but it might matter if your SIZ is 16, since it would factor into your hit points. 

Quote

Mechanically, yes, fights are in 90% of all scenarios. Here is where the story diverges from the rules: Lancelot is far more worried about crossing a bridge less than a foot wide than he is fighting mortal enemies. It is in fact a major source of the drama in the poem. His killing all of Meleagant's goons, less so.

Not surprising, both because Lancelot is already established as an amazing fighter, and because the (sword?)-bridge is an usual peril that most people could relate to (the 60' fall). But had Lance been build as a high DEX PK he probably wouldn't have fared so well against the goons. We do have to remember that as Lancelot he is just going to be great at practically everything.

Quote

But as long as doing such feats remains a part of the stories, DEX has to stay.

No, not really. RQ's Balance skill would do just as good if not better. IN fact, I'd say DEX in KAP really just serves as an way not to track the skills is mimics, but does so on a way that is rather poor for game play. Whatis a PK supposed to do if they come across some DESX based challenge that they are incapable of handling? Spend the next decade imrpoving DEX during the Winter Phase? Write up a new character?

Quote

I suspect that a decent STR and SIZ is all one would need to be a run-of-the-mill RTK.

And those could be put into one stat. In fact, skills could probably replace stats completely. 

Quote

Anyone wanting play a member of the elite (or really, do anything really interesting) has to have a character capable of more than fighting.

Yes, but DEX and APP don't really help much in doing so. High APP doesn't help with social situations, and even allowing for your examples, DEX isn't worth the investment (the off chance that a PK might cross a fantastic bridge or climb out of a cave hardly is worth the investment).

Quote

In terms of APP 16 there are some good rules in Paladin for seducing strange women using one's APP, particularly the daughters of Pagan adversaries whilst one is imprisoned... this is a Romance cliche, of course, but it's valid.

Maybe, but they are not rules in Pendragon. I could suggest averaging skills with the appropriate attribute to get the effective score, but that's kinda what Morien's suggestion actually does in the first place.(Sorry don't mean to sound snarky here, just pointing out that functionally that is what using DEX/2 as the base does, except with a different rate of advancement).  

Edited July 28, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

7 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

In terms of APP 16 there are some good rules in Paladin for seducing strange women using one's APP, particularly the daughters of Pagan adversaries whilst one is imprisoned... this is a Romance cliche, of course, but it's valid.

Alas, only works on pagan (non-Christian) ladies. Also, a bit too easy. I admit that it is a cliche and as such it should be easy, but come on, even APP 10 knight can win over a Lady-in-waiting with a reasonable chance. Also, a bit of a niche use of the APP, unless one makes a career out of getting locked up by Saracens and seducing their ladies (Lord Flashheart?).

[Atgxtg]

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

I have not once insulted you in this forum and I expect the same respect form you. If you don't agree with what I have said that is your right, but insults to me prove you have not true valid arguments. See "What are you smoking?" below.

I haven't insulted you either. I did however wanted to point out that your previous post was contradcitory. namely you claimed that you resolved the situation without add or changing the rules and then introduced what is essentially a houserule as your solution. 

Using your same argument, I could claim that Morien resolved the same situation without adding any rules by adding a variable modifier of up to half APP to all Courtly skills. 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

I have explained my position on this if you only see your ideas as valid that's your prerogative.

I see many ideas as valid, regardless of the source. The DEX/2, APP/2 idea actually was from someone else. 

I can even be convinced to change my mind about an idea. I wasn't all that wild about the APP/2 idea to begin with, and would still like to see a better alternative. The reason why I've been attemtping to test out this variant in chargen is because Morien's been very good at backing up his position. 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

It's not my job to convince you otherwise

No, but if you want to convince anyone of anything you have to present you case to do so, and deal with your points being challenged, either by presenting additional evidence that supports your points, or conceding some points. 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

I have shown how provided rules within the current rules as written can easily handle this

No you haven't. Not really. What you have done is pointed out that per page 114. a GM can apply any sort of modifier he wishes at any time he things it is is warranted, and presented that as a solution. You have even used the rules for Distinctive Features in a way that actually contradicts what is in the RAW on page 37. 

 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

 

 

but since it is not written as this its what you do directly and to the letter in the rule you brush it off as not the rule. If you need a in-dept chart with all the modifiers in the game and can't use the open modifier system provided in the game that a failing on your part not the games. As an GM you should know the rule are a tool kit not a tech manual, so if the rules don't list specific modifier in the example it does not mean it is not part of the rules. If you went by that logic only Falconry and Awareness could ever be modified.

I have shown that while it doesn't give a step-by-step instructions to do what I suggest the rule that make it up are all present in the RAW.  

No what you have done is presented a houserule that uses Distinctive Features to give modifiers of social rolls, and one that doesn't quite fit with the RAW. Now it's not a bad hoserule, although it would only really work if distinctive features were positive or negative based on APP (which by RAW they aren't), and would probably need some sort of quality modifier determined by the actual APP Stat (otherwise all APP scores past a certain point are the same), but it is now what's in the RAW, or even what is implied by the RAW.

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

Rule as Written.

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features pg. 37

No, per the rules as written, distinctive features are not positive or negative based on APP. APP determines the quantity of the features, not that they are positive or negative in nature. Per KAP 5.2 p. 37

Distinctive Features allow for objective differences between characters with the same numerical value. A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low
APP, though you may wish to make it so. The following suggestions include ideas for both positive and negative features.

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. pg.37

No the rules state the can be positive or negative regardless of APP, which actually goes against your case of using distinctive features as the solution for APP. In fact, had you presented your solution as a houserule (which you seem to deny that is is) then you'd be on firmer ground. 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. pg.114

No, you are completely wrong on this point. Greg didn't avoid putting in specific modifiers in the game to allow the GM to apply once that fit the circumstances. They are specific modifiers all over the place: Mounted vs. Foot, rearming, DEX penalty for armor., lance charge, Inspiration bonus, etc. The information of page 114 even uses these specific modifiers as examples. The information page 114 is to help a GM gauge what sort of modifier is appropriate for a certain situation. I'd even say that the imformation of page 114 would be a lot less useful without examples of specific modifiers. So your claim here is entirely unsupported. 

But nowhere in the rule or examples, in any version of Pendragon, does a character get some bonus to a social skill from a high APP. If it were implied in the rules, as you suggest, then it would have shown up somewhere in the last 30+ year. The lack of such evidence does not constitute proof. If you are going to claim that such a modifier was the intention then you do need something to back you up.

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

4. These modifiers can be anything that fits the roll. pg.144

I think you referenced the wrong page here, as p. 144 is in the combat section as covers jousting, mounted combat and so on.

However, assuming that your meant page 114, nothing about it suggests that APP and/or directed traits should be used to give skill modifiers, not does it give a nice little +5 per relvant positive feature and -5 or relevant negative feature. That is entirely your doing and constitutes a houserule.

Just looking at the rule by itself, it's not a bad houserule either, except that by RAW low APP and negative distinctive features are not a given. By raw you can have a APP 4 character with a "fantastic smile" or "melodious voice" or some such, completely separating the APP score from the modifier. So it's rather obvious that your method is not what was intended by the RAW. By the RAw a APP4 character with a"melodious voice" might get a positive modifier to singing or orate, if the GM thinks so. 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:22 PM, tenchi2a said:

Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you were being passionate about your ideas, but Next time it will be a report not a response if you insult me again.

Oh, goGo ahead report it. Triff probably needs a good laugh. And btw, this is Triff's sitem, not Chasoiium's. He pays the bills. Not that I think that the folks over at Chasoium would take the phase "what are you smoking?" as an insult. At least not in this context.  You inferred some very extreme and basically unsubstantiated assumptions about the RAW  with no real evidence to back you up other than the fact that the GM can apply any sort of modifier that he wants to, whenever he wants to, and then used it to justify your own houserule. Basically you tried to retcon a houserule as RAW even though your interpretation directly contradicts how distinctive features are presented in the RAW. 

Yes the rules allow the GM to apply any sort of modifier that he deems fit, but the lack of examples of such a modifier being applied due to distinctive features does not mean that such a modifier is implied in the rules. Just like there is no implied modifier given to combat skills by DEX. THat doesn't mean we should infer one.

 

 

I don't want to upset you but you really just did present a houserule here. It's not a bad houserule either, but it is a houserule. You might want to believe it is the RAW, but it isn't. Don't take my word for that - ask anybody else here. If just one person here agrees with your interpretation as being implied by the RAW then I'll create a thread specifically to apologize to you  for the "What are you smoking?", comment. Assuming I don't drop dead from shock or something first. No offense but your previous post was the broadest interpretation of implied game rules that I have ever encountered in all my years of gaming. I can't even come up with some sort of analogy, and I can usually do that with just about anything. 

[tenchi2a]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I haven't insulted you either. I did however wanted to point out that your previous post was contradcitory. namely you claimed that you resolved the situation without add or changing the rules and then introduced what is essentially a houserule as your solution. 

(U.S.) way of saying a person is acting strange: He's off his medication. Or...The doctor needs to up his dosage. Etc.

So a statement that is implying a person is not of a normal stat of mind, so an insult.

To use it as a non insult requires familiarity  that we don't have as two people on a web forum.

Quote

Using your same argument, I could claim that Morien resolved the same situation without adding any rules by adding a variable modifier of up to half APP to all Courtly skills. 

Here your are reaching, my idea comes from using the mod system as presented in the book not coming up with a mod from a derived state formula that is not present in the book.

Quote

I see many ideas as valid, regardless of the source. The DEX/2, APP/2 idea actually was from someone else. 

I can even be convinced to change my mind about an idea. I wasn't all that wild about the APP/2 idea to begin with, and would still like to see a better alternative. The reason why I've been attemtping to test out this variant in chargen is because Morien's been very good at backing up his position. 

No, but if you want to convince anyone of anything you have to present you case to do so, and deal with your points being challenged, either by presenting additional evidence that supports your points, or conceding some points. 

No you haven't. Not really. What you have done is pointed out that per page 114. a GM can apply any sort of modifier he wishes at any time he things it is is warranted, and presented that as a solution. You have even used the rules for Distinctive Features in a way that actually contradicts what is in the RAW on page 37. 

There is no contradiction.

See below.  

Quote

 

No what you have done is presented a houserule that uses Distinctive Features to give modifiers of social rolls, and one that doesn't quite fit with the RAW. Now it's not a bad hoserule, although it would only really work if distinctive features were positive or negative based on APP (which by RAW they aren't), and would probably need some sort of quality modifier determined by the actual APP Stat (otherwise all APP scores past a certain point are the same), but it is now what's in the RAW, or even what is implied by the RAW.

Again this is only true if you completely ignore the the second part of the sentence (though you may wish to make it so).

Quote

No, per the rules as written, distinctive features are not positive or negative based on APP. APP determines the quantity of the features, not that they are positive or negative in nature. Per KAP 5.2 p. 37

Distinctive Features allow for objective differences between characters with the same numerical value. A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so. The following suggestions include ideas for both positive and negative features.

No the rules state the can be positive or negative regardless of APP, which actually goes against your case of using distinctive features as the solution for APP. In fact, had you presented your solution as a houserule (which you seem to deny that is is) then you'd be on firmer ground. 

Why does ever response ignore the (though you may wish to make it so) part of the sentence, a (,) is a continuation of an idea not a new one. That part is still RAW, but you seem to ignore it to make your point. 

So no, the RAW do not contradict my point. They provide an option within the core rules for doing what I am saying.

IF you are looking for a word "optional rule" is one I would except as everything I have said has connection to the RAW, but hose rule implies that I made everything up. 

The issues here is that by your logic a person with APP (18) could have all negative and a person with APP (5) could have all positive. this is the shining example of braking "suspension of disbelief" which you must have for any RPG to work. 

The idea that someone with APP (5) would have 3 positive distinctive features is a hard one to follow.

As, according to you this "unattractive and possibly physical deformity" (right from the book) knight can be;

• bright-eyed
• nice smile
• blond

Nothing here that explained his APP (5) appearance.

or a APP (18) "attractive character" (again from the book) knight can be;

• hunchback
• flabby
• facial blemishes

A real winner for an APP (18) here.

 

Quote

No, you are completely wrong on this point. Greg didn't avoid putting in specific modifiers in the game to allow the GM to apply once that fit the circumstances. They are specific modifiers all over the place: Mounted vs. Foot, rearming, DEX penalty for armor., lance charge, Inspiration bonus, etc. The information of page 114 even uses these specific modifiers as examples. The information page 114 is to help a GM gauge what sort of modifier is appropriate for a certain situation. I'd even say that the imformation of page 114 would be a lot less useful without examples of specific modifiers. So your claim here is entirely unsupported. 

Now you are implying my meaning outside of the point I was making. Most if not all these mod that you are addressing are part of the combat system, not what we where taking about here. The area we where taking about was non-combat skills which the game takes great strides to keep separate from the combat skills. (How they are raised, used, etc) And the section on skills only gives two non-combat examples, and both examples are roleplaying examples not set modifiers.

Quote

But nowhere in the rule or examples, in any version of Pendragon, does a character get some bonus to a social skill from a high APP. If it were implied in the rules, as you suggest, then it would have shown up somewhere in the last 30+ year. The lack of such evidence does not constitute proof. If you are going to claim that such a modifier was the intention then you do need something to back you up.

Has the "lack of APP doing anything" come up in 30+?

I ask because someone would have to say something first before it would be discussed.

I would think if it had then Greg or whoever had the license at the time would have addressed it.

Quote

I think you referenced the wrong page here, as p. 144 is in the combat section as covers jousting, mounted combat and so on.

sorry mistype.

Quote

However, assuming that your meant page 114, nothing about it suggests that APP and/or directed traits should be used to give skill modifiers, not does it give a nice little +5 per relvant positive feature and -5 or relevant negative feature. That is entirely your doing and constitutes a houserule.

It also doesn't say that of you are riding your horse and it is startled by a large snake the horsemanship roll gets a -5, would you say that that is a house rule or a use of the modifier system provided. If the former the it is clear you are a rules lawyer and this conversation is pointless. If the latter that you have just undercut your argument. 

Quote

Just looking at the rule by itself, it's not a bad houserule either, except that by RAW low APP and negative distinctive features are not a given. By raw you can have a APP 4 character with a "fantastic smile" or "melodious voice" or some such, completely separating the APP score from the modifier. So it's rather obvious that your method is not what was intended by the RAW. By the RAw a APP4 character with a"melodious voice" might get a positive modifier to singing or orate, if the GM thinks so. 

Agin see above.

If you are only going to use the first part of the sentence then again this conversation is pointless.

Quote

Oh, goGo ahead report it. Triff probably needs a good laugh. And btw, this is Triff's sitem, not Chasoiium's. He pays the bills. Not that I think that the folks over at Chasoium would take the phase "what are you smoking?" as an insult. At least not in this context.  You inferred some very extreme and basically unsubstantiated assumptions about the RAW  with no real evidence to back you up other than the fact that the GM can apply any sort of modifier that he wants to, whenever he wants to, and then used it to justify your own houserule. Basically you tried to retcon a houserule as RAW even though your interpretation directly contradicts how distinctive features are presented in the RAW. 

I have seen less lead to bans on websites.

And if this is not an office Chaosium web it should make that fact know on the site.

(bold) And again here you ignore section of the sentences that don't agree with you point.

Quote

Yes the rules allow the GM to apply any sort of modifier that he deems fit, but the lack of examples of such a modifier being applied due to distinctive features does not mean that such a modifier is implied in the rules. Just like there is no implied modifier given to combat skills by DEX. THat doesn't mean we should infer one.

There is no implied modifier form "STR for Faerie Lore" I can do that to.

You have this tendency to jump to combat rule for everything even when they are not in question.

Quote

I don't want to upset you but you really just did present a houserule here. It's not a bad houserule either, but it is a houserule. You might want to believe it is the RAW, but it isn't. Don't take my word for that - ask anybody else here. If just one person here agrees with your interpretation as being implied by the RAW then I'll create a thread specifically to apologize to you  for the "What are you smoking?", comment. Assuming I don't drop dead from shock or something first. No offense but your previous post was the broadest interpretation of implied game rules that I have ever encountered in all my years of gaming. I can't even come up with some sort of analogy, and I can usually do that with just about anything. 

I know quite a few KAP GMs/players that think I'm right as I did not come up with this idea it was my first KAP GM.

And most of the GMs that I have presented it to over the years have adopted it.

Now that is neither here nor there. I was presenting an will call it an option for how APP can be useful in the game. 

I am not looking for your validation or anyone else on the boards (the 2-3 other people that have responded to this thread), if you need it that your thing.

I just don't like being attacked or in a sense called a liar. So I was forced to defend myself.

If you don't like the rule "optional or what ever" don't use it.

I have already responded to the "What are you smoking?", comment above.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by tenchi2a

[tenchi2a]

All that said the most impotent contribution  from APP and DEX are to the aging rules.

If either of these hit 0 you die, so to me that alone makes them equal to the other stats IMHO.

So if you want to have low APP and DEX  risking earlier death, more power to you.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

All that said the most impotent contribution  from APP and DEX are to the aging rules.

If that is thier most important contribution then they could indeed be removed. That is exactly what Greg did with INT and POW. The aging rules were cribbed from RQ3. 

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

If either of these hit 0 you die, so to me that alone makes them equal to the other stats IMHO.

You forgot being bedridden when the values drop to 3 or less.

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

So if you want to have low APP and DEX  risking earlier death, more power to you.

It's not that much greater of a risk. Since stat points are lost 1 point at a time, it is extremely rare for a character to drop from active to bedridden all that quickly, as active character will be able to offset the risk with training and glory awards for quite some time, even with a low APP and/or DEX. In fact, probably longer than one with higher DEX and APP stats as the higher SIZ and CON he has will translate into better success in combat and more glory.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

(U.S.) way of saying a person is acting strange: He's off his medication. Or...The doctor needs to up his dosage. Etc.

No it doesn't, as "off his meds", etc. implies that said person is in need of being medicated in the first place - that the part that is supposed to be insulting. 

 

"What are you smoking?" Is more often used when somebody states something that makes little sense or is unsupported by his facts.

Quote

So a statement that is implying a person is not of a normal stat of mind, so an insult.

To use it as a non insult requires familiarity  that we don't have as two people on a web forum.

Implying that someone is not in their normal state of mind is not necessarily an insult. Implying that they need medicate to achieve a normal state of mind, is.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Hzark10]

I think this has been very interesting take on things.

Tenchi21, if I understand your take, if it the distinctive features of attributes themselves that give a gm the power to make modifiers based on the situation. I consider myself an "old-timer" being with this system in full since 4th edition and a dabbler since 1st.  It has changed over the years. Combat, being very important, has the most rules and if/when there is another edition, more changes will occur, I expect.

Courtly skills have been slower to develop, although this is open to debate as well.  The various editions of Pendragon has slowly gone backward in time. 4th edition sets the base starting point at 530 with the background for fathers/grandfathers reaching back to 490. Boy King supplement moved the overall time back to 510. 5th edition moved it further back to the middle of Uther. Finally, when the GPC came out, the time was firmly set to 485.  The Book of Uther and its addemdum, moved the starting date to 480. This is the time of dark times, the dark ages, so to speak. Combat is all powerful, court scenes and the kindler notions of fine amor are not really considered. And the Book of Sires compiles backgrounds starting in 439 all the way to 510 for a campaign set in Logres.

That has/is changing. The system needs to move forward in time now.  Courtly skills will have greater weight. Atxtgx was correct in what he stated when he gave modifiers.  They were mostly combat related as the system has spent the most time upon that aspect.  Upon rereading your take a couple of times now, I think you reached valid points yourself. It is not the way I would have handled it, but I always refer back to YPMV (Your Pendragon May Vary).  I allow Traits and Passion to have more power than others, while you may not.  Veli may use the Book of Battle in its entirely, while I may only use it for the important scripted battles, Atgxtg may be full blown into the Courtly aspect and family events, while I gloss over all things that are not pertinent to the core campaign, and finally, you may use Distinctive Features as a way to give modifiers to situations. 

The number of people I have actually met that are on these boards I can count on one hand.  However, I now know by these boards, over 100.  I have been involved in rpgs since 1976, and been in print since 1978. I know, and have been involved in, numerous systems as an co-author, game system developer, system analyst, go-to guy, and have successfully run campaigns that had a 10+ year span.  I do NOT consider myself an expert, as I always look for ways to improve my style of playing/gming, or systems to make them more fun.  Your treatment here is novel. Not that way most of us do it.  I don't expect my take to be the one and only way to do things.  For example, I allow a successful Passion roll to affect another Passion, Trait, Skill, or even  Attribute.  (Successful Love (child) allowing one to double STR so can pick up (move) that car to get to your child). But that is me.  I don't assume or force my way onto others. Not saying you are either, or anyone else is.  I also say up front this is my take on the rules, or the way I handle things.  Believe me when I say, I have had "what the..." moments when others have posted something, and probably they have with mine.  BUT, I never take it personally as I try to see why they say what they say.  I learn from everyone and hope that I make it a better game. If you show yourself to be a regular on these boards, some familiarity is automatically assumed.  

Humbly submitted,

BobS.

 

 

[Morien]

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Has the "lack of APP doing anything" come up in 30+?

From personal experience:

Privately: As soon as our group picked up the book about 20 years ago, players noticed that APP is not really doing anything (except Aging, but you are much more likely to die sooner from SIZ 8 in combat than APP 8 in Aging), and DEX only a little bit. So they pretty much became dump stats from the get-go. I had to introduce a houserule that APP would be rolled randomly, and they would get 50 points instead of 60 points to spread around the other 4 stats. (And yes, I do consider this a houserule, despite it using both designated and random methods, both of which appear in the rules.)

Publicly: As soon as I started posting in Forums (I forget what was the one that predated the Nocturnal one?) about 10 years ago. (Actually, that was probably when I joined the Nocturnal one... I think I started posting in the previous one a couple of years before that, after we restarted the campaign in 2005 with GPC...)

32 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Your treatment here is novel.

Actually, I am pretty sure I saw something similar posted as a houserule suggestion. It wasn't exactly the same, though. IIRC, it was giving +1 or +2 per distinctive feature to all courtly rolls. But this was some time back. I will see if I can find the link.

Again, my problem isn't what someone else is doing in their games. YPWV (Your Pendragon Will Vary), as Greg was fond of saying instead of YMPV. My beef with tenchi2a was that he claimed that this would be RAW, which, to me, indicates that this is how the rules work AS WRITTEN, and most of us must have been reading the rules wrong all these years. Maybe I need a chill pill.

4 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

IF you are looking for a word "optional rule" is one I would except as everything I have said has connection to the RAW, but hose rule implies that I made everything up. 

The 'may' definitely makes it optional that you mandate negative and positive distinctive features based on APP score. The fact that the rules state that the Distinctive Features themselves do not track handsomeness but APP does is what pushes your suggestion rest of the way into houserule territory for me. Although technically, optional rules are houserules, depending a bit on your definition (see below).

Houserule isn't a pejorative term to me. I use them all the time! It simply means that the ruleset that I use as the GM in our 'house' is tweaked from the vanilla RAW. Nor does a houserule mean that it has no connection to the default rules, see my earlier example of rolling APP randomly while other attributes are assigned by the player. Or for instance, I would consider it a houserule if a GM says that all characters will use the random attribute rolling from BoK&L, despite the book giving three options and saying that mix and match is fine, with GM permission. It is totally in line with the rules for a GM to mandate a random method for all characters, but you cannot say that the RAW mandates a random method for all characters and only random. You see the difference?

32 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Veli may use the Book of Battle in its entirely,

Bad example as I am probably the leading BoB contrarian in these boards. (My battles are already complicated enough, thanks for asking; I don't need a book's worth of extra rules to memorise.)

Edited July 29, 2019 by Morien