Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Atgxtg

Alternate Chargen Test Challenge

Recommended Posts

While I don't retract any of my former statements, I will say that I may have been to harsh do to my last few weeks on the Shadowrun forums and dealing with the complete gutting of the system in the name of "balance and streamlining".

Making it the 3rd game I liked (Star Wars, Legend of the Five Rings) to be destroyed by companies trying to get new customers at the expense of old customers that have supported them through the thin years before RPG became main stream.

So to come to another forums for a game I like and hear lets change the rules it will be better kind of is my "trigger word" right now.

AS for gaming, I may not have the years you have but I have been gaming since the mid 80's, and have seen many rules that where suppose to enhances turn around and bite the writers on the @$$

Share this post


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

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.

Exactly, my main beef as well. I have some problems with the implementation but those are the normal sort of questions that come up when discussing any new rule or application of an existing rule.

 

17 minutes ago, Morien said:

Houserule isn't a pejorative term to me.

Is a pejorative term to anyone? Even Greg used to say he came up with a new hourserule for someone or other, and he wrote the game. Many of the rules we all know and love in BRP games started off as somebody's hoserule that got adopted by the designers over time. Greg wanted the game to evolve and get better, it didn't matter to him if the improvement was a houserule or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Morien said:
59 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. :P (My battles are already complicated enough, thanks for asking; I don't need a book's worth of extra rules to memorise.)

Sorry, my bad.  I somehow thought you were on the other side with all your discussion on it.  Will have to go back and reread the posts.  I feel BoB has a place, but where is my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

While I don't retract any of my former statements, I will say that I may have been to harsh do to my last few weeks on the Shadowrun forums and dealing with the complete gutting of the system in the name of "balance and streamlining".

Making it the 3rd game I liked (Star Wars, Legend of the Five Rings) to be destroyed by companies trying to get new customers at the expense of old customers that have supported them through the thin years before RPG became main stream.

So to come to another forums for a game I like and hear lets change the rules it will be better kind of is my "trigger word" right now.

AS for gaming, I may not have the years you have but I have been gaming since the mid 80's, and have seen many rules that where suppose to enhances turn around and bite the writers on the @$$

Yea! We agree on something. :)

I understand and share your concern here. That is precisely why I started a thread to test this out. Keep in mind that although I post here (quite) regularly, and occasionally put up a house rule or suggestion that others might like or adopt, I'm in no way someone who can alter the official rules. Morien, having contributed to some of the KAP5 supplements is "better connected" but Still there is a line devloper who would need to be convinced (not to much a host of fans) that any such change is actually an improvement and is worth changing the RAW.

But, somewhat ironically, my reason for starting this thread was to test out this rule to avoid doing exactly what you fear- messing up the rules, or introducing something that will com back to bite me on the Gluteus Maxiumus. So no, I don't want to take a ax to the RAW.

Part of the reason why I think this won't do so is because it is similar to the Category modifiers rule from RuneQuest/BRP, from which Pendragon was derived. Tru the modifier in KAP would be somewhat larger than than in RQ, but then there are fewer skills in Pendragon to be modified. 

Now as for justification, it has indeed become rather obvious over the years that DEX and APP get shortchanged in the RAW. In earlier editions this wasn't such a big deal because attributes were often generated randomly and because the emphasis was more on adventuring and deeds of valor, which tended to downplay APP.  Now, in the latter editions, courtly activities have become more prominent, and such actions really do need to be fleshed out the way combat and adventuring skills are. A GM handling APP ad hoc was fine when we were just dealing with the NPC beautiful maiden that popped up in an adventure to be saved and wedded by an adventuring knight, but it doesn't do said maiden justice when she is a player character. Much the same holds true when you have magicians as player characters. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


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

Even Greg used to say he came up with a new hourserule for someone or other,

Greg used to drive me nuts with his 'Optional Skills'. I think one of his examples was Knifethrowing, and I was tearing my hair out while typing a furious response that surely the correct skill would be Dagger, or DEX, rather than coming up with Yet Another Narrowly Defined Optional Skill

But then again, I am a skill minimalist to an extent, too. :P

51 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

So to come to another forums for a game I like and hear lets change the rules it will be better kind of is my "trigger word" right now.

Oh, I can definitely understand that. I would not like to see too drastic changes either.

However, replacing the nigh useless Starting Skills with something easier to remember and giving DEX & APP more of a boost appeals to me greatly. I did try it out in our Middle-earth conversion and lo and behold, the player who wanted to be a courtier type did go for high APP and got high starting courtly skills as the result, making it easier for him to continue improving them.

Giving +-5, especially stacked ones, seems to me to be asking for a galore of criticals. Especially combined with the Family Characteristic (another potentially huge bonus that I dislike) and Glory/1000 bonus (ditto). The fact that the Distinctive Features are so neutral and prone to interpretation seems, to me, to be asking rules-lawyering, too.

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Morien, having contributed to some of the KAP5 supplements is "better connected"

Whatever I am saying on these boards are my own opinions (and boy, do I have opinions!). I am not a Chaosium employee, although I think I get a tiny trickle of Drivethrough rpg credits from the GPC expansion standalone (Greg was kind enough to assign me a royalties slice of the pie), just to disclose that. I have volunteered to pitch in and help with various books, so sometimes I get to play 'I wrote the damn thing, I know how it is supposed to work' -card. :)

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hzark alerted me to this thread because wanted to know what I thought of it.

In my personal Opinion making APP more important by giving the Courtly skills + or - modifiers on them sounds nice for a oneshot, but not for a campaign. The oneshot it's good because you don't expect to do anything or interact with those characters again. For a Campaign as GM and as a Player it would be problematic.

Say you were in battle fighting valiantly for Arthur and took a major wound and lost APP for it and now all of a sudden your courtly skills suck, people snub you because your APP is too low and you might have had decent skills courtly skills before but they are now down too. As a result of being snubbed by your Liege and even Arthur as a GM I would say that is actually a personal insult and worthy of Loyalty Passion Loss. Because fighting valiantly, earning glory as a hero then being sat far away from everyone is a massive insult to you and your service.

That's the first detriment I see which would be Passion Loss. Due to your skills being modified you cannot make the rolls you used to and thus are snubbed, insulted or shunned by those you knew which in some cases is something which should not happen.

A second would be Antagonistic Trait/Passion Gain, Traits and Passions are great and awesome things in my opinion, but if you are constantly being shat on for not looking good you'll grow resentful, envious, cruel, arbitrary or being to harbor passions such as Hate (Lord) Hate (Lady) Hate (Arthur). Which in the long run unless all the Party has them will be detrimental to Party interaction, which in turn escalates party infighting which can leave players feeling sour and ruining the experience.

Early Retirement is another one which I can be seen done by players left right and center. "Ah so bad rolls which lead to the enemy getting a major wounds over three or so years and aging means I've lost a lot of APP?" (Doesn't have to be APP but if it is then this seriously applies) Said player reads over rules "So wait at this APP which since mine was average and now half my face has been cut up so it is ugly as hell I take negs to courtly skills and now can't attend court because I can't make the roll to let people let me in? I think I'll just retire this character so he can stay home and I can play someone who is more than a murder hobo."

That or they just soldier on and lose Loyalty or even Love and gain Antagonistic Traits/Passions.

 

Personally I did do something as a Homerule (Well not really) when I looked at the Great Campaign and then Game Master Characters Sheets.

Ygraine had 32 APP, Guenever had 30 APP

They both incited Lustful rolls at +10 to all who saw them, meaning that there is something to that.

So I myself decided to sit down and do the maths because hey APP has to be worth something, the more beautiful a lady or Knight is has to give them some benefit, I mean that's what the GPC has for these two why not expand on that.

So I came up with and this is the original draft I copied it from

'Going to say since APP 30 was +10 lustful , so I'd say

16-17 +2 to Lustful

18-19 +3 to Lustful

20-21 +4 to Lustful

22-23 +5 to Lustful

24-25 +6 to Lustful

26-27 +8 to Lustful

28-29 +9 to Lustful

30-31 +10 to Lustful'

I capped it at 10 because I feel that +10 modifiers to trait rolls is more than enough in my opinion and it works the same as when you're first in someones sight (Or if the GM forgets, when you talk to said character or when they talk to you). Basically it can give them a directed trait or passion towards your character. Or the other way around making APP something more useful say when you try to insight the lustful roll in a young knight if you play a lady or if you want to seduce a young lady as a knight. It's a house rule that I used from established events and rolls in the GPC. It's not perfect but it does make APP more than a dump stat in the games I run, sometimes I use it to negative the resistance as in Chaste of a Lady or Knight, but more often than not my players are looking for more than one night stands.

DEX I agree needs more importance but not too much. From the way I run/play DEX and APP are the seasoning to the STR, SIZ CON because lets face it we're playing Knights not Ambassadors or Ninjas. They are there and have competency (Above 12 for me) is good enough to make the game more interesting but they should not be the focus of skills in any shape or form. Because that brings me to another that I believe should be given more thought before mods are made to stats

If One Attribute is directly linked to skills, other Attributes must be linked to appropriate skills or Checks

If I were to rule for the negative penalty and positive gains for Appearance, If I were to accept Dex/2 for certain skills. Should I then add +1 or -1 Bonus Dice for Strength, should I then add +1 or -1 modifiers for CON checks. Should I add positive and negative modifiers for weapons, Appearance, traits because of SIZE.

I'm not sure about you guys but when I run or play my games I want them to be one thing Fun. Adding in things to punish players for me would ruin the Fun both as a GM and as Player. Adding negatives based on Attributes which are actually quite hard to change would make the system antagonistic which in turn would make everyone play balanced Knight which would be very boring since they'd all have similar Attributes meaning they'd be a new baseline that most people would go for because it has the least penalties. When players start the game thinking like that, it will surely damage how the game is going to go if they are fretting like "Oh I could roll my passion and take on this Saxon. Or I could not and not risk losing another Attribute that will net me penalties for losing it more so than other stats.

If a system punishes players for not investing points or simply because they had bad luck on aging rolls or wounds that would make it seem antagonistic towards players which in turn would turn people away from playing. What's the point of playing a Generations game about collecting Glory if you have mandatory switch Knights because they can't be seen at court or what not.

I'm all for NPCS or even players not wanting to talk to someone because they are ugly and scarred enough to be hideous. I am not for saying "Those skills you invested, time, energy and effort are now null because you neglected to increase your APP."

 

I said it before but I believe games are simply meant to be fun so if a system is set to punishes players in these ways. It's not going to be fun.

Share this post


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

Greg used to drive me nuts with his 'Optional Skills'. I think one of his examples was Knifethrowing, and I was tearing my hair out while typing a furious response that surely the correct skill would be Dagger, or DEX, rather than coming up with Yet Another Narrowly Defined Optional Skill

Ok this we can agree on. I have never liked the Idea of Narrowly Defined Optional Skill especially when they have a tendency to be put in several books later after the need has faded or an optional rule has taken its place. As a example why have the Knife-throwing skill, there is a Dagger skill and a throwing skill why would you need a skill to combined these?

Quote

But then again, I am a skill minimalist to an extent, too. :P

I agree when it is warranted, but minimalism can be its own trap to. 

Quote

Oh, I can definitely understand that. I would not like to see too drastic changes either.

I think we all feel that way.

Quote

However, replacing the nigh useless Starting Skills with something easier to remember and giving DEX & APP more of a boost appeals to me greatly. I did try it out in our Middle-earth conversion and lo and behold, the player who wanted to be a courtier type did go for high APP and got high starting courtly skills as the result, making it easier for him to continue improving them.

One of the major issues I took with the Newer Mechwarrior game (A Time of War) outside of the need a spreadsheet character creation was the generic character it created due to the removal of faction specific. The first thing I see with the Idea presented here is the removal of the faction specific skill list as they would be replaced by, lets face it, a generic attribute to skill conversion so that culture no longer matters only attribute. First, this kills random attribute since no one is going to want to be skill crippled by a roll. Second, like all PC the players are going to find the optimum point spread to get the best skills and start cloning it, so all PCs will become carbon copies from then on.

P.S. another of the system that got hit by the lets "balance and streamlining" it bug.

But while they streamlined the mechanics they went overboard on the character creation somehow creating a at once more generic but also overly complex character creation system.

That takes skill.

Quote

Giving +-5, especially stacked ones, seems to me to be asking for a galore of criticals. Especially combined with the Family Characteristic (another potentially huge bonus that I dislike) and Glory/1000 bonus (ditto). The fact that the Distinctive Features are so neutral and prone to interpretation seems, to me, to be asking rules-lawyering, too.

I was using the mod in the book which where in +5 intervals and capping it at +10. As most non-combat skill tend to be much lower the combat skills I never found a problem with it.

Quote

Whatever I am saying on these boards are my own opinions (and boy, do I have opinions!). I am not a Chaosium employee, although I think I get a tiny trickle of Drivethrough rpg credits from the GPC expansion standalone (Greg was kind enough to assign me a royalties slice of the pie), just to disclose that. I have volunteered to pitch in and help with various books, so sometimes I get to play 'I wrote the damn thing, I know how it is supposed to work' -card. :)

No issues keep having your opinions.

Edited by tenchi2a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Finran said:

"Those skills you invested, time, energy and effort are now null because you neglected to increase your APP."

Thanks for your thoughts. Always nice to hear what other people are thinking. I'll just quickly comment on this one:

The APP/DEX default scheme I am advocating is setting the starting skills. As soon as you spend points on skills (raising from the defaults), then the default for that skill won't matter. So the old man who was a famous Orator 20 in his day still has Orate 20, even though his APP has dropped from (say) 16 to 6. It is just that the handsome guy of APP 18 who has always trusted on his looks to carry the day with the ladies ('hey, how are you doing...', default Flirting 9) would instead find that his appeal has become less if someone cuts his nose off and reduces his APP to 8 (default Flirting 4). He should have upped his game while he still could and spent some points on Flirting! (Granted, Flirting is one skill where I would be happy to give bonuses and penalties for relative APP,  too...)

Of course, I could see an alternative to this and simply assign all the defaults at the beginning. This is what we ended up doing in the Middle-earth campaign, since it was a royal pain to track which skills had been raised and which not. In this case, your defaults would be set by your starting stats and wouldn't go up nor down with your stats in subsequent play. Which I think is a reasonable enough compromise for playability while still improving the lot of DEX and APP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Finran said:

Hzark alerted me to this thread because wanted to know what I thought of it.

In my personal Opinion making APP more important by giving the Courtly skills + or - modifiers on them sounds nice for a oneshot, but not for a campaign. The oneshot it's good because you don't expect to do anything or interact with those characters again. For a Campaign as GM and as a Player it would be problematic.

Say you were in battle fighting valiantly for Arthur and took a major wound and lost APP for it and now all of a sudden your courtly skills suck, people snub you because your APP is too low and you might have had decent skills courtly skills before but they are now down too. As a result of being snubbed by your Liege ...

Sorry but you don't understand how the option is being implemented: Agility skills (tied to DEX) and Courtly Skills (tied to APP) have a minimum value equal to half the relevant Characteristic. These skill values do not decrease. So if Sir Adonis with APP 18 (and a starting value of 9 is all Courtly skills) suffers a few bad years on the aging table and wins up with APP 4, his Courtly skills do not get reduced, so Sir Adonis would still have a Courtesy of at least 9 (probably higher).

 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

Early Retirement is another one which I can be seen done by players left right and center. "Ah so bad rolls which lead to the enemy getting a major wounds over three or so years and aging means I've lost a lot of APP?" (Doesn't have to be APP but if it is then this seriously applies) Said player reads over rules "So wait at this APP which since mine was average and now half my face has been cut up so it is ugly as hell I take negs to courtly skills and now can't attend court because I can't make the roll to let people let me in? I think I'll just retire this character so he can stay home and I can play someone who is more than a murder hobo."

Uh, that is no different that what happens if someone looses a lot of CON or SIZ now -although as I stated above, in this rule variant stat loss does not lower skills. 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

That or they just soldier on and lose Loyalty or even Love and gain Antagonistic Traits/Passions.

 

Personally I did do something as a Homerule (Well not really) when I looked at the Great Campaign and then Game Master Characters Sheets.

Ygraine had 32 APP, Guenever had 30 APP

They both incited Lustful rolls at +10 to all who saw them, meaning that there is something to that.

So I myself decided to sit down and do the maths because hey APP has to be worth something, the more beautiful a lady or Knight is has to give them some benefit, I mean that's what the GPC has for these two why not expand on that.

So I came up with and this is the original draft I copied it from

'Going to say since APP 30 was +10 lustful , so I'd say

16-17 +2 to Lustful

18-19 +3 to Lustful

20-21 +4 to Lustful

22-23 +5 to Lustful

24-25 +6 to Lustful

26-27 +8 to Lustful

28-29 +9 to Lustful

30-31 +10 to Lustful'

Okay math wise this is APP/2 (round down)-6. I don't have a problem to the idea of the modifier (it's very similar to what were are implementing here), but I do have a problem with the rounding you use. KAP typically uses round to the nearest in all it's formulas so I'd probably push for 13-14: +1, 15-16: +2, 17-18 +3 and so on. 

 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

 It's not perfect but it does make APP more than a dump stat in the games I run

Not that much more. Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but isn't worth losing SIZ or CON for.  A year or two of training and practice in Flirting or some such is worth more than the point of two of APP.

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

DEX I agree needs more importance but not too much. From the way I run/play DEX and APP are the seasoning to the STR, SIZ CON because lets face it we're playing Knights not Ambassadors or Ninjas. They are there and have competency (Above 12 for me) is good enough to make the game more interesting but they should not be the focus of skills in any shape or form. Because that brings me to another that I believe should be given more thought before mods are made to stats

The problem is that now all PKs have a high SIZ becuase SIZ is so much more important than the other stats. Far more important that it should be. Starting at SIZ 18 is such a huge advanage compared to DEX 18 or APP 18 that there is no comparison. Only CON really holds its own against SIZ. 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

If One Attribute is directly linked to skills, other Attributes must be linked to appropriate skills or Checks

If I were to rule for the negative penalty and positive gains for Appearance, If I were to accept Dex/2 for certain skills. Should I then add +1 or -1 Bonus Dice for Strength, should I then add +1 or -1 modifiers for CON checks. Should I add positive and negative modifiers for weapons, Appearance, traits because of SIZE.

Good point,  but no I don't beleive you have to add modfiers for CON, or SIZ becuase they are already much more powerful in KAP, compared to the other attributes already, and the purpose of this rule was to offset that advantage.

Game design wise, this discrepancy in stats is because Pendragon dropped several aspects of RQ such as category modifiers, STR/DEX requirments, and Strike Ranks that helped to balance out the attributes better. Low DEX or APP not only lead to lower skill scores in RQ, but also in a slower advanment in those skills (at least in some versions of RQ/BRP/Stormbringer, etc.). A low DEX character in RQ had a hard time in combat.

 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

I'm not sure about you guys but when I run or play my games I want them to be one thing Fun. Adding in things to punish players for me would ruin the Fun both as a GM and as Player. Adding negatives based on Attributes which are actually quite hard to change would make the system antagonistic which in turn would make everyone play balanced Knight which would be very boring since they'd all have similar Attributes meaning they'd be a new baseline that most people would go for because it has the least penalties. When players start the game thinking like that, it will surely damage how the game is going to go if they are fretting like "Oh I could roll my passion and take on this Saxon. Or I could not and not risk losing another Attribute that will net me penalties for losing it more so than other stats.

I want the game to be fun too, but you can't have the fun stuff without the risk of bad stuff happening too. One of the risks of letting PKs fight fire-breathing dragons is the risk that sometimes the dragon might win, and dealing with the consequences. Not allowing for that also reduces the fun factor in some way.

 

That said, this rule isn't going to lower skills or add negative modifiers.

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

If a system punishes players for not investing points or simply because they had bad luck on aging rolls or wounds that would make it seem antagonistic towards players which in turn would turn people away from playing. What's the point of playing a Generations game about collecting Glory if you have mandatory switch Knights because they can't be seen at court or what not.

Sorry but all game "punish players for not investing points". Don't believe me? Try running a PK who never raises Sword up from his default value. He will get punished quite regualrly for not investing points into sword. 

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

I'm all for NPCS or even players not wanting to talk to someone because they are ugly and scarred enough to be hideous. I am not for saying "Those skills you invested, time, energy and effort are now null because you neglected to increase your APP."

I agree. But that's not how the rule presented works. THe way it works is that the default scores of some skills are based on DEX/.2 or APP/2. That will give characvters with good scores in those stats a boost in those skills, and characters with low scoresin those stats a somewhat lower base (although even a low APP character is going to be pretty close in courtly skills to what PKs start at now).

8 minutes ago, Finran said:

I said it before but I believe games are simply meant to be fun so if a system is set to punishes players in these ways. It's not going to be fun.

Yes, but this isn't going to punish players. It is going to allow players more flexibility in character design and reward them for higher attributes, and that sould increase the level of fun. Right now, PKs look a lot alike with a high SIZ and CON, enough STR to catch the 5d6 or 6d6 damage stat, and low to mid DEX and APP. With this rule we could get PKS with high DEX and/or APP stats who could actually have a significant advantage against the high SIZ characters. More options = more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

that culture no longer matter

Ah, now I never said that the cultures COULDN'T modify the starting skills, too, did I? :P Just that I don't see much of a point adjusting each skill by a point or two, like one culture having a skill at 2, and another one at 3. You wouldn't really see a big difference in play. Instead, I would rather see something like Saxons getting a Bonus for Boating, while the Cymri might get a penalty, the Cymric knights not really being famous seafarers, but vice versa for Horsemanship.

That being said, I wouldn't see a big problem if there were no cultural modifiers to skills. If you want to play a seafaring Cymric knight, go ahead. Make your own story. Don't play the stereotype.

One thing that really gets my goat is the Speciality Skills introduced in BoK&L. They lock each culture to their stereotype. Romans have a big advantage over others in Courtesy and Intrigue, since they only use a single skill. This means they need only 1 yearly training or Glory point to raise both of those skills, so any Cymric knight who seeks to excel in those is by design inferior. And I don't like that. I don't like your culture defining what you are. I don't like that all players who like intrigue will be Romans, since that is the best build for Intriguing, and so forth.

You say that the culture no longer matters. I say that it frees the character to be more than a cultural stereotype (with all Saxon knights using two-handed weapons, etc.) and allows much more varied RP too: "I thought all of you Saxons were uncouth barbarians!" "My dear fellow, what a horrid thing to say. Manners maketh man."

Share this post


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

One thing that really gets my goat is the Speciality Skills introduced in BoK&L. They lock each culture to their stereotype. Romans have a big advantage over others in Courtesy and Intrigue, since they only use a single skill. This means they need only 1 yearly training or Glory point to raise both of those skills, so any Cymric knight who seeks to excel in those is by design inferior. And I don't like that. I don't like your culture defining what you are. I don't like that all players who like intrigue will be Romans, since that is the best build for Intriguing, and so forth.

Ah, you are talking about the Meta-Skills? yes/no?

I, and I will admit I might very well be in the minority, like them.  If you are creating characters, and using the Random method, you might very well end up with being a Roman during Uther's time where fighting those big Saxons are the yearly events.  Yes, they give each culture a unique design.  Yes, they will be superior in their own element, but try to act like a thief in D&D say, and have no levels in the actual class and see what happens.  Better to have the players tell you what they want and go from there so they won't be of a culture that they don't want to play.  But, that being said, I had a monk who could cast clerical spells without a level in cleric (background and feat choices). Yes, I was a terrible healer, but I COULD heal.  In KAP, not being a Roman means I might not be as good in intrigue as that Roman fellow over there, but that doesn't mean I can't try.  

Humbly submitted.

Share this post


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

Ah, now I never said that the cultures COULDN'T modify the starting skills, too, did I? :P Just that I don't see much of a point adjusting each skill by a point or two, like one culture having a skill at 2, and another one at 3. You wouldn't really see a big difference in play. Instead, I would rather see something like Saxons getting a Bonus for Boating, while the Cymri might get a penalty, the Cymric knights not really being famous seafarers, but vice versa for Horsemanship.

If that was the case I could see it, but as presented its not.

Quote

That being said, I wouldn't see a big problem if there were no cultural modifiers to skills. If you want to play a seafaring Cymric knight, go ahead. Make your own story. Don't play the stereotype.

The point here to me is that in the current system its up to the players to actively work to brake the stereotype.

In the system you and Atgxtg are proposing all players are equal from a generic attribute to skill conversion even if they don't put any work into being different from the stereotype.

Quote

One thing that really gets my goat is the Speciality Skills introduced in BoK&L. They lock each culture to their stereotype. Romans have a big advantage over others in Courtesy and Intrigue, since they only use a single skill. This means they need only 1 yearly training or Glory point to raise both of those skills, so any Cymric knight who seeks to excel in those is by design inferior. And I don't like that. I don't like your culture defining what you are. I don't like that all players who like intrigue will be Romans, since that is the best build for Intriguing, and so forth.

Quote

You say that the culture no longer matters. I say that it frees the character to be more than a cultural stereotype (with all Saxon knights using two-handed weapons, etc.) and allows much more varied RP too: "I thought all of you Saxons were uncouth barbarians!" "My dear fellow, what a horrid thing to say. Manners maketh man."

Here I have to say I disagree as that is the point of the different cultures.

Roman society at large puts more emphasis on Courtesy and Intrigue where Cymric society is more about the sword and spear.

You are dealing with a Knight who has been brought up with his society norms, so of course he will be better with spear and the same goes for Roman society and Courtesy and Intrigue.

to brake the mold one needs to active fight against the norms (Roleplaying and skill selection) not have it handed to them by the system.

 

Edited by tenchi2a
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Okay math wise this is APP/2 (round down)-6. I don't have a problem to the idea of the modifier (it's very similar to what were are implementing here), but I do have a problem with the rounding you use. KAP typically uses round to the nearest in all it's formulas so I'd probably push for 13-14: +1, 15-16: +2, 17-18 +3 and so on. 

 

I'm using what the Great Pendragon Campaign uses. 30 for Guenever having +10 was what I used and stats of 13-15 are above average but not something not worthy in the same way Traits are only famous and net you glory once you hit 16+. I don't want it to be too easy.

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry but all game "punish players for not investing points". Don't believe me? Try running a PK who never raises Sword up from his default value. He will get punished quite regualrly for not investing points into sword. 

Quote

This is entirely moot because it is far easier to raise sword skill than it is to raise your Attributes. At a point you can't increase them without glory, don't believe me check out aging and what it does as well as Racial Caps for Attributes while skills can be raised beyond 20. There are alternatives to swords there are no alternatives to having low Attributes though.

Thing is SKILLS can also be increased by checks, ATTRIBUTES can't. For the Four Unique points during Char Gen there is a reason why skills go up 5 and Attributes go up on, it's because they are not equal so comparing the two of them as if they are is utterly pointless. Especially considering that Attributes LOCK until you get glory to get past the racial lock while Skills do not. So yes while all games do punish the player, not all games are scourging them and then crucifying them in the way the described system would propose. 

 

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Not that much more. Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but isn't worth losing SIZ or CON for.  A year or two of training and practice in Flirting or some such is worth more than the point of two of APP.

Quote

I think I made out that SIZE and CON are the main dish, but ever played in the romance period? You'll find that causing people to lust after you can actually get you more Romance than most and net you glory from it.

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Good point,  but no I don't beleive you have to add modfiers for CON, or SIZ becuase they are already much more powerful in KAP, compared to the other attributes already, and the purpose of this rule was to offset that advantage.

 

What is suggested in character creation though is wanting to make the Knights mince meat for Saxon Axes, no seriously if you're going to add those modifiers in for skills because of DEX and APP. What do you want the players to do 3d6 damage so they can have decent skills?

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but this isn't going to punish players. It is going to allow players more flexibility in character design and reward them for higher attributes, and that sould increase the level of fun. Right now, PKs look a lot alike with a high SIZ and CON, enough STR to catch the 5d6 or 6d6 damage stat, and low to mid DEX and APP. With this rule we could get PKS with high DEX and/or APP stats who could actually have a significant advantage against the high SIZ characters. More options = more fun.

It is punishing players in character creation no less, which in turn means that you'll have people who would have enjoyed the game not enjoy the came. Having starting stats for 5 damage makes sense because those Saxons aren't going to give a damn about your courtly skills. But they are going to care about how much you can hit, saying starting skills for weapons are Dex/2 is crippling Knights abilities. These are people who've trained all their life to fight and defend their homeland, not some third division school team. Even at the age of 15 when it comes to sports, the children who put in effort to train day after day are the ones who were more skilled. Tying skills to DEX is completely ignoring the years of training they had to get to that stage and saying that's all they have is just wrong.

I'm not sure about you but actually being capable of dealing damage to armored saxons who you can face based of rolls sounds like more fun than being killed every single battle, which there are a lot of especially early on and later on. The agency for SIZE and CON is there for a reason, trying to add more agency to DEX and APP is just punishing people saying "Well do you want to be able to hit people and be liked by your allies but do no damage" or "Do you want to be capable of being hit hard by people who can deal 6d6 or more damage (Which is as much as most horses) and hitting them hard"

What is proposed is trying to wipe clear the established working formula and add in something which left unchecked would not only make Pendragon more complex and more difficult to get into than it already is. Don't believe if you interview over a thousand randomly selected people from across the globe in different nations and states, how many would know of the King Arthur Pendragon System. How many would know Dungeons and Dragons, Patherfinder, Exalted, Star Wars. You'll find that we fall into the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Finran said:

I'm using what the Great Pendragon Campaign uses. 30 for Guenever having +10 was what I used and stats of 13-15 are above average but not something not worthy in the same way Traits are only famous and net you glory once you hit 16+. I don't want it to be too easy.

The +10 for Gwen was per the GPC, but the incremental modifiers were not. If you want to set 3-=_+10 then probably something like 11-12+1 would match the KAP formulas. One thing to watch out for though is that the ability the GWen has to essential charm a character might be too much for a lady PK to get. Even with allow chance of working it could still leave a lady PK with a small army of devoted followers.

26 +8

28+9

11 hours ago, Finran said:

This is entirely moot because it is far easier to raise sword skill than it is to raise your Attributes. At a point you can't increase them without glory, don't believe me check out aging and what it does as well as Racial Caps for Attributes while skills can be raised beyond 20. There are alternatives to swords there are no alternatives to having low Attributes though.

Yes there is a point where you can't raise attributes without Glory, but skills tend to cap out around 20 too. Sure it's possible to raise a skill with an experience check, but with only a 5% chance of doing so a typical knight is going to end up with a 20 or 21 without glory. 

11 hours ago, Finran said:

Thing is SKILLS can also be increased by checks, ATTRIBUTES can't.

Yes some other things are that:

1) Skills do go up that fast past a certain point

2) Skills need to be higher that attributes to be beneficial. The typical NPK is going around with a 19 Sword skill, so a PK needs a 19 to be even with the typical NPKs.Now because players assign attributes and DEX and APP aren't all that importantr what is happening is that the typical PK now starts with a 17-18 SIZ.

11 hours ago, Finran said:

 

For the Four Unique points during Char Gen there is a reason why skills go up 5 and Attributes go up on, it's because they are not equal so comparing the two of them as if they are is utterly pointless.

Yes an no. Yes they are not equal. But not just because attributes are better( Sword 20  is much better than DEX 20) but also becuase skills below a certian threshold are not good enough to be used- or are used as a last resort. Sword 5 will get a PK killed much faster than DEX 5 or APP  5. PKs with courtesy 2 or Orate 2 are better off keeping thier mouths shut and hoping to to draw attention to themselves and so on.

11 hours ago, Finran said:

Especially considering that Attributes LOCK until you get glory to get past the racial lock while Skills do not. So yes while all games do punish the player, not all games are scourging them and then crucifying them in the way the described system would propose. 

Except the described system doesn't pun ish the PKs at all. Nothing prevents a low APP or Low DEx character from putting their points into DEX and APP skills. THey are not hurt in any way. In fact they would mostly start off with higher better skill scores since DEX/2 and APP/2 are still higher than most default skills now. 

11 hours ago, Finran said:

I think I made out that SIZE and CON are the main dish, but ever played in the romance period? You'll find that causing people to lust after you can actually get you more Romance than most and net you glory from it.

Yes I have played in the Romance period. I've run several campaigns over the years and quite honestly,  romance doesn't even come close to the glory won from battles and tournaments. THen there is the addtional wealth to cvonsider.

But, as written, APP and DEX don't help all that much in the Romance period. Sir Ugly with Flirting 20 is still going to do alright at the feasts.

11 hours ago, Finran said:

What is suggested in character creation though is wanting to make the Knights mince meat for Saxon Axes, no seriously if you're going to add those modifiers in for skills because of DEX and APP. What do you want the players to do 3d6 damage so they can have decent skills?

Uh, once again you haven't grasped the proposed change. Characters won';t have to have do 3d6 damage to have decent skills. If anything the typical PKs starting skill scores will be higher than they are now.  

 

11 hours ago, Finran said:

It is punishing players in character creation no less,

No it doesn't, but since you think it does, can you provide a sample character to show how they are being penalized in chargen by this method?

 

11 hours ago, Finran said:

What is proposed is trying to wipe clear the established working formula and add in something which left unchecked would not only make Pendragon more complex and more difficult to get into than it already is. Don't believe if you interview over a thousand randomly selected people from across the globe in different nations and states, how many would know of the King Arthur Pendragon System. How many would know Dungeons and Dragons, Patherfinder, Exalted, Star Wars. You'll find that we fall into the minority.

Would you please stop and read the method proposed by Morien. I don;t know what you think this is supposed to be doing but it's not what was proposed. Your saying that it is going to do a lot of things that it won't.

To clarify the proposed system works as follows:

1) The default value for Physical Skills will be DEX/2. The default value for Courtly skills will be APP/2.

2) Anything in chargen that results in a skill score being higher that the default applies normally. For instance characters who start as knights get Sword, Battle, First Aid, etc. at 10. This doesn't change as it reflects the PKs years of training as a squire. Liewise if a Culture provides a higher skill score during chargen then that score remains at the higher level. 

4) PK Squires per the Book of Entourage start off at APP/2 or DEX/2 in the appropriate skills. Since Knightly skills started off at a 3 (Age -11) for such characters, any character with a DEX score of 5 or higher at least breaks even. Those with DEX 7+ actually come out ahead.

5)Any PK or player-squire with and APP or DEX of 3 or less is going to be bedridden and virtually unplayable, and so only characters with a DEX or APP of 4 areat risk of being "penalized" in any way, and that is only by 1 point or so, and quite frankly they should be more worried about taking a major wound and becoming bedridden than being a point behind the other squires in Sword skill at age 14.

5) Skills are not capped by attributes, nor are they reduced if the attribute is reduced. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

If that was the case I could see it, but as presented its not.

Actually it was. Per the orginal idea, only the defaults is changed, not any improvment. All those skills that Knights get a 10 during chargen relfect thier training as squires, and so would still start off at 10 (or 9 or 8 or whatever). 

12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

The point here to me is that in the current system its up to the players to actively work to brake the stereotype.

Not really. All you have to do to break the sterotype, as far as skills go, is to mnot imrpove the cultural skills.  It's not all that hard either, as the PK will have a sword skill at least as good as thier cultural weapon, unless they work to promote the stereotype, and sword trumps other weapons anyway. It really the traits, passions, and religions that define the cultures amd they are much harder to break away from.

12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

In the system you and Atgxtg are proposing all players are equal from a generic attribute to skill conversion even if they don't put any work into being different from the stereotype.

Uh, yup. So? Per RAW there isn't much difference between starting PKs that don't put points into improving things. Pretty much all PKs start with Sword 10, Battle 10, Lance 10, First Aid 10, etc. Its the choices they make during chargen that individualizes them. 

12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Here I have to say I disagree as that is the point of the different cultures.

Is it? What do you base that on? In the literature the various knights seem to be remarkable similar in skill sets. That KPA made it though to KAP4 without cutural meta-skills shows that the cultures were viable as distinctive cultures without the meta-skills. He's also right than a 1 point difference in a starting skill score is virtually meaningless in play. That once culture starts with Dancing 3 and another Dancing 4 does little to differentiate the two cultures in play.

12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Roman society at large puts more emphasis on Courtesy and Intrigue where Cymric society is more about the sword and spear.

Which is why the Romans could never organize under a leader and how the Cymri were able to dominate Europe on the batlefield with Sword and Spear, except, wait the opposite was true. A Roman Legion with Spear and Sword would slaughter most Cymri armies, who in term spent more time on Courtesy and Intrigue than they did on Spear & Sword.

I hate to say it, as I like the cultural skills, but neither history nor Arthurian lore supports the cultural skills in KAP5. And KAP 4 cultures lacked suck skills are were just as well defined. 

 

But that moot anyway, as the cultural skills always start off at higher than the default anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DEX and APP are useless, the simplest way to deal with those is simply to discard those characteristics. The things that were handled by DEX rolls can be replaced by one or a few skills.

Problem is that now, we have a triplet of characteristics that are very similar, and could all fall into a single "Body" attribute in other games. Also, SIZ is more interesting than tye other two, as it contributes to both Hit Points and Damage, whereas STR and CON each only contribute to one of those....

EDIT: as a matter of fact, if we also drop SIZ, CON and STR we're not far from HeroQuest...

Edited by Mugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually it was. Per the orginal idea, only the defaults is changed, not any improvment. All those skills that Knights get a 10 during chargen relfect thier training as squires, and so would still start off at 10 (or 9 or 8 or whatever). 

Again I am not concerned with there combat skills.

I am concerned with their non-combat skill which are the true mark of their cultural upbringing.

Quote

Not really. All you have to do to break the sterotype, as far as skills go, is to mnot imrpove the cultural skills.  It's not all that hard either, as the PK will have a sword skill at least as good as thier cultural weapon, unless they work to promote the stereotype, and sword trumps other weapons anyway. It really the traits, passions, and religions that define the cultures amd they are much harder to break away from.

you seem to be stuck on just one skill representing the whole package, while I agree that skill is an important skill the rest of the chart also factors in and you idea washes over that.

Just in the British cultures there are major differences in skill distribution and those distributions also change depending on the time period.

Quote

Uh, yup. So? Per RAW there isn't much difference between starting PKs that don't put points into improving things. Pretty much all PKs start with Sword 10, Battle 10, Lance 10, First Aid 10, etc. Its the choices they make during chargen that individualizes them. 

Doesn't need to be much difference to be different.

Quote

Is it? What do you base that on? In the literature the various knights seem to be remarkable similar in skill sets. That KPA made it though to KAP4 without cutural meta-skills shows that the cultures were viable as distinctive cultures without the meta-skills. He's also right than a 1 point difference in a starting skill score is virtually meaningless in play. That once culture starts with Dancing 3 and another Dancing 4 does little to differentiate the two cultures in play.

Which is why the Romans could never organize under a leader and how the Cymri were able to dominate Europe on the batlefield with Sword and Spear, except, wait the opposite was true. A Roman Legion with Spear and Sword would slaughter most Cymri armies, who in term spent more time on Courtesy and Intrigue than they did on Spear & Sword.

You seem to have the administrative roman nobles the culture in the game represents confused with the roman legions.

First the roman legions were a subculture of the roman society not the Romans at large, and for the most part outside their generals (Legatus legionis) were normal not roman citizens.

The tended to be Socii or client state citizens who where indoctrinated into the roman legion culture, roman citizens did not normally if every join the legions.

And as the roman empire had been in decline since 410 AD and collapsed in 476 AD  roman culture in KAP is the remnants of the noble administration from the occupation that chose to stay or the British peoples that adopted the culture.

So no the roman society in the game is not the roman legions it is the roman administrators, so the culture skill is fine.

The roman culture that you are talking about would be the Byzantines in this game and I would say their cultural skill of "Tactics" fits the conquerors that you are portraying. 

Quote

I hate to say it, as I like the cultural skills, but neither history nor Arthurian lore supports the cultural skills in KAP5. And KAP 4 cultures lacked suck skills are were just as well defined. 

But that moot anyway, as the cultural skills always start off at higher than the default anyway. 

I don't feel its a moot point as again I am more about the total culture balance of all skills not just one or two and thru out each of the cultures skills charts their are differences not just with one or two skills.

Edited by tenchi2a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that way is a mistake, IMHO.  

King Arthur is about the rise and fall of a great society where wrongs are righted, the knights follow a code of honor, the king is generous and noble, and so on.  Who is this Arthur?  If you study history, there are quite a few who could qualify as being Arthur.  For better or worse, Greg decided to set his Arthur in Salisbury and that made him a Cymric.  It follows that means the Cymri. Now putting this into gaming terms, how can we define the various cultures? KAP has only one race - human (except for the fae, but you can run the game without them as well). So how to differentiate?  

Stereotypes were created for each culture.  Basic Role Playing (BRP) is the core of KAP and all of the Chaosium games to a greater or lesser extent.  So, try to figure out the different cultures (Cymri, Irish, Cornish, Aquitannian, Britonnian, Roman, Pict, Cambrian, Cumbrian) by using the tools provided.

These are good points everyone is bringing up as it makes the powers that be look at the system and try to decide what, if any, needs to be changed.  We know, based on notifications, Book of Castles, Book of Magic are pretty well done, there is a Samurai type game, a Greek based game, and maybe a couple of other things out almost ready.  So, the system works, I think. How to improve it? 

DEX for knights in their heavy armor may not be a great stat because it is overshadowed by Encumbrance. However, for a Pict, who wears little armor, that DEX can come into play. Moving inside castles, court scenes, normal day activities where armor is not worn, and again you have DEX being used.  APP follows a similar route, although there are very few uses for it during combat.  But, human nature tends to make one turn towards someone who is more good looking than not.  

I believe we need to keep these skills.  Tweak the system more to make them more important rather than the opposite.  Do the skills matter?  If so, what level do they start? Are they realistic? How do you differentiate between starting levels based on culture? These are good questions.  And, I am sure the powers that be are listening.

Humbly submitted,

BobS.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

The tended to be Socii or client state citizens who where indoctrinated into the roman legion culture, roman citizens did not normally if every join the legions.

Incorrect.

During Republic, prior to the Social War (91-88 BC), the demographics of the Roman consular armies was usually 50% Roman citizens + 50% Italian Socii, reinforced by whatever local auxiliaries they deemed necessary (like Caesar later on relying on allied Gauls for cavalry). Some of these auxiliaries became more fixed features later, too, as the legions became more of a permanent garrison force rather than raised primarily for each campaign, but they were not the majority of the forces.

After the Social War, the Italian Socii got a Roman citizenship, and you actually had to be a Roman citizen in order to become a legionary. Now, this wasn't always followed, Caesar for example was raising legions in Cisalpine Gaul from people living north of Po river, who did not have citizenship (I think they had Latin rights, so more akin to the Socii of earler). But by and large, the legions were made of Roman citizens.

Then in 212 AD The Edict of Caracalla made all free men in the Roman Empire Roman Citizens. So after that, all the legionaries were Roman citizens. Now, I would agree that the recruitment in Italy proper was declining and the manpower was recruited elsewhere, but they were Roman citizens.

You are somewhat more on a firmer ground in the 400s century Western Empire, when there were big 'barbarian' contingents fighting for the Western Empire (as foederati). Still, not all of the 'legions' were just barbarians. There were still many Roman recruits, too. Funnily enough, the top military leaders are sometime barbarians, too, like Stilicho (granted, his mother was a Roman provincial and he identified as a Roman, not a Vandal which his father was), Aspar, Ricimer, and Odoacer.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

And as the roman empire had been in decline since 410 AD and collapsed in 476 AD  roman culture in KAP is the remnants of the noble administration from the occupation that chose to stay or the British peoples that adopted the culture.

This is correct, although to clarify: Greg made very clear for BoSi and which is reflected in the Story of the Romans there: Pendragon Romans (in Britain) are not ITALIAN. Instead, they are Romanized Britons, Romano-Brits. They represent the urbanized Romano-British culture. That being said, the Roman characters are not civilian administrators. They are knights, and have been for a couple of generations. They are not intended to become law clerks or something like that.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


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

This is correct, although to clarify: Greg made very clear for BoSi and which is reflected in the Story of the Romans there: Pendragon Romans (in Britain) are not ITALIAN. Instead, they are Romanized Britons, Romano-Brits. They represent more of the urbanized Romano-British culture. That being said, the Roman characters are not civilian administrators. They are knights, and have been for a couple of generations. They are not intended to become law clerks or something like that.

Being a knight is their job not their culture. The point was they come from a city dwelling urbanized British culture as you stated while they can become knights that was not their cultural identity.

""These are the Old Families of the “ancient aristocracy.” The urban Britons revere their Roman heritage, especially their legal system that has maintained the “peaceful imperial times""

These are not remnants of roman legionnaires, but as is stated aristocracy so the Law skill is a fine fit for them not a specialized combat skill. That was my point.

48 minutes ago, Morien said:

Incorrect.

During Republic, prior to the Social War (91-88 BC), the demographics of the Roman consular armies was usually 50% Roman citizens + 50% Italian Socii, reinforced by whatever local auxiliaries they deemed necessary (like Caesar later on relying on allied Gauls for cavalry). Some of these auxiliaries became more fixed features later, too, as the legions became more of a permanent garrison force rather than raised primarily for each campaign, but they were not the majority of the forces.

After the Social War, the Italian Socii got a Roman citizenship, and you actually had to be a Roman citizen in order to become a legionary. Now, this wasn't always followed, Caesar for example was raising legions in Cisalpine Gaul from people living north of Po river, who did not have citizenship (I think they had Latin rights, so more akin to the Socii of earler). But by and large, the legions were made of Roman citizens.

Then in 212 AD The Edict of Caracalla made all free men in the Roman Empire Roman Citizens. So after that, all the legionaries were Roman citizens. Now, I would agree that the recruitment in Italy proper was declining and the manpower was recruited elsewhere, but they were Roman citizens.

You are somewhat more on a firmer ground in the 400s century Western Empire, when there were big 'barbarian' contingents fighting for the Western Empire. Still, not all of the 'legions' were just barbarians. There were still many Roman recruits, too. Funnily enough, the top military leaders are sometime barbarians, too, like Stilicho (granted, his mother was a Roman provincial and he identified as a Roman, not a Vandal which his father was), Aspar, Ricimer, and Odoacer.

first your %'s are way off as only the first 4 legions where raised in roman and tended to be kept as province defense and the other 10 where from client states so it would be more like 29% Roman citizens + 71% Italian Socii.

And the citizen is one I have seen debated as what was truly considered a Roman citizen has always been in question.

The point about "Latin Rights" is always the sticking point as even some "Roman citizen" did not always have "Latin Rights".

That said, I was more describing The Roman Empire near the fall, as that would be the time that mattered to the KAP game. 

Edited by tenchi2a

Share this post


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

This is correct, although to clarify: Greg made very clear for BoSi and which is reflected in the Story of the Romans there: Pendragon Romans (in Britain) are not ITALIAN. Instead, they are Romanized Britons, Romano-Brits. They represent the urbanized Romano-British culture.

I want to back up Veli here. Greg specifically helped rewrite this section (Roman history/background) as he wanted to make sure it fit his version of what the Roman characters had for background. It his his note on page 270 "A Note about the Romans" regarding this. So, no matter what history says, KAP specifically uses Greg's vision as its source.

 

23 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

And the citizen is one I have seen debated as what was truly considered a Roman citizen has always been in question.

The point about "Latin Rights" is always the sticking point as even some "Roman citizen" did not always have "Latin Rights".

That said, I was more describing The Roman Empire near the fall, as that would be the time that mattered to the KAP game. 

And, if and when, the continental Romans are discussed as possible choices, these point(s) will be addressed.  Not saying you are wrong, simply saying Greg wanted a specific result. A similar one occurred when the Aquitainians history was being written, about how to reconcile the Visogoths into Lancelot's people when their history is so well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

first your %'s are way off as only the first 4 legions where raised in roman and tended to be kept as province defense and the other 10 where from client states so it would be more like 29% Roman citizens + 71% Italian Socii.

I am going to need a reference and a timeframe for that. What are the 10 client states and when? Province defense? This implies more Imperial times, when Romans were more about defending than expanding. In Republican times, the legions tended to be raised for each campaign as needed and disbanded afterwards.

Romans raised way more than 4+10 legions for the Second Punic War, and during the unpleasantness in the Late Republic (after Italian Socii were already citizens, too).  

Share this post


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

And, if and when, the continental Romans are discussed as possible choices, these point(s) will be addressed.

No need. The whole question of Latin Rights and Roman citizenship becomes immaterial after the Edict of Caracalla, since all free men became Roman citizens, enjoying the same rights. In any case, the question is more about culture than the citizenship status. A freedman (ex-slave) who has spent his whole adult life in Roman culture would be 'Roman' in our cultural definition, even though he wouldn't have been a citizen (I'd have to check if there would be this 2nd class status after the Edict, but like said, it doesn't matter).

By 5th century, you have Romanized populations that would be KAP Roman culture and the others who would not be. In KAP, most of Gaul would still be Roman until late-5th century and probably for a generation after the fall of Soissons. It would be only towards Middle Phase (Conquest, etc) onwards that you would shift from the Romans and the Franks to their melange, the French, IMHO.

EDIT: That being said... I'd be happy enough to give the Franks the same attributes as the French, for simplicity. But in 485, they'd still be majority pagans, since Clovis doesn't covert until later. But this is something to think about later.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to point out a couple of other things...

In KAP, the cultures do not just modify your skills, but they modify your attributes and traits, too. Granted, the traits are more accurately modified by your homeland, as we have discussed on the Forum before. A Roman character born and raised in Salisbury would use Salisbury traits, not generic Roman traits. The point is, there is more to culture than a couple of skill points' difference in X.

EDIT: Also, let me repeat that while I don't think it is strictly necessary, I would very easily see the cultures modifying the skill defaults, which I would prefer over flat culture-based starting skills that bypass the defaults completely. See my comments on the example character builds in this thread why flat skills (i.e. pick a skill at 10) are not as good with this system than skills that builds on the default (i.e. add 5 to a skill).

Edited by Morien

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...