Wel­come, Guest
User­name: Pass­word: Remem­ber me

TOPIC: Tun­ing up pri­or­ity pick + a social pick for review

Tun­ing up pri­or­ity pick + a social pick for review 1 year 11 months ago #3953

  • Anarak
  • Anarak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 149
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 1
Howdy folks!

Wow, 2+ months since a last post, things look as des­o­late as a Khazra­jite wastes here :Hmmm

So, i’ve been toy­ing with a social table pick for a new game where this will be rel­e­vant, then, while in the process of bal­anc­ing the pick, i’ve done a few bits of arcane cal­cu­la­tions here and there and it seems some of the picks could use a bit of a tune up.

G R A N T E D i’m far from experienced(very, very, very far) in cal­cu­la­tions but, tak­ing these as a base:

1 asset = 6 skill points = 2 pro­fi­cien­cies = 2 attrib­utes
1 skill point = basic “point“
1 attribute or pro­fi­ciency = 3 points
F assets = –18 “points” (-6 from each of 3 bad assets).
E asset = –6 points
A asset = 36 points
To achieve zero sum, I add 18 to the sums that are negative(assets and cul­ture). So F asset is worth 0 points. E is 186 (12 points), D is 0+18 , C is 6+18 (24), B is 18+18 (36) and A is 36+18 (54). So now it pre­cisely equates to skills.

Here’s where I start to see that some could use a few tun­ing. The skills add up up to © pick, but then in B and A they become a bit shorter, 33 and 48 instead of what I thought would be 36 and 54, respec­tively.

Then to pro­fi­ciency. If A assets = 36(+18) and each Prof.Point. is worth 3 points, an A prof. should give 18 points, not 16. B should be 12 prof points instead of 11. Every­thing after is as usual, 8, then 6 then 4 then 0. ( 0×3=0, 4×3=12; 6×3=18; 8×3=24; 12×3=36 & 18×3=54)

Then there’s cul­ture. A) has 14 points worth as skill. An asset worth 6, and 9 points worth of attrib­utes, for a total of 29+18=47 (1 point short of orig­i­nal skill pick (48) and 7 points short of 54. The trick is of course that cul­ture is kinda of a joker card for you to boost either attrib­utes or skills and bal­ance if you dont have a good pick for either. Sec­ondly, you have the “longevity” semi-​asset. Frankly, will prob­a­bly boil down to utter fluff unless you get out of your way to make it rel­e­vant, what shouldn’t be the case for the major­ity of adven­tures and cam­paigns. We could say that this fluff is worth some points, but cer­tainly not a 6-​point worth of an asset you could choose and actu­ally ben­e­fit from. You’re still short 7 points. I’d say pump the skill bonus to +15 and either trans­form the “longevity” into another choos­able asset or pump it up, like giv­ing other tid­bits of good­ies, like requir­ing less sleep or some other mechan­i­cal boost worth of an asset.

Then B), with its orig­i­nal pick has 9 points worth of attrib­utes and 7 points worth of skill +18 for zero sum, for 34 instead of 36. So imo this pick should have 9 skill points and 3 attrib­utes.

C) Seems to actu­ally have more than it should have. It has 7 points worth of skill whereas I think it should have 6 (6+18=24). Now, 6 points seems to short exactly of 1 point to sound right. If going to be “point-​true”, it should be 6 skill points, but to stick to theme for cul­ture, I’d per­haps allow (or decree) that C gives 3 extra skill points and a +1 to an atribute (BW or TY most likely). That would be the gim­mick to seduce peo­ple into cul­ture as its some­what of a dump pick (or so I noticed). The thing is that I use the would-​be rule that states + attrib­utes from cul­ture is actu­aly a +1 above a char­ac­ter actual attribute (as read in a post around here).

Then there’s E and F. F has 9 points of neg­a­tive points from minus attribute, and-​12 from bad assets for –21 points. To zero sum with +18 you are still 3 point neg­a­tive (which, IMHO, means that F cul­ture is 3 points too neg­a­tive). It should, as far as this whole gib­ber­ish is con­cerned, be –2 attribute points & 2 bad assets (sum 0) or, alter­na­tively, –4 attrib­utes and a sin­gle bad asset.

E is some­what bal­anced. If you pick –1 atr &1 asset, thats a 9 instead of the 12 points reg­u­lar for this pick, but its a reg­u­lar 12 if you pick –2 attrib­utes. I guess one could say its the price of choice?

For attrib­utes i’ll spare the gib­ber­ish, but i’d find it to be A) 36 –instead of 34; and (B) 30 — instead of 29. The rest is as usual.


So, long story short. Was there some sort of hid­den mechan­ics to get to the num­bers in the table or was it delib­er­ated?

Sum­ming Up, I think it should look like this
Attrib­utes
A) 36 B ) 30 C) 26 D) 24 E) 22 F) 18

Pro­fi­ciences
A) 18 B ) 12 C) 8 D) 6 E) 4 F) 0

Skills
A) 54 B ) 36 C) 24 D) 18 E) 12 F) 0

Cul­ture
A) 15 skill points +3 attrib­utes +2 assets (or asset like) B ) 9 skill points +3 attrib­utes C) 3 skill points + 1 attribute
D) 0 E) –1 attribute –1 asset or –2 attrib­utes F) –2 attrib­utes &2 assets; or –4 attrib­utes &1 asset

Sor­cery
As is. With +6 prof for mis­ter­yarch, +3 for sor­cerer and +1 for dab­bler (as dis­cussed by Michael in a post. Totally agreed).
I could break down with crazy “math” to derive points, but theres no point, sor­cery is unusual enough so what­ever with bal­ance.

Assets
As is. Its the base for this whole mad­ness and the sim­ples to balance.


All being said, wrong or not, here’s what I scrib­bled about a social pick:


A) Landed Lord
You are a proper Landed Lord. You have your own land. A size­able hold and a fief to look upon, even if some­what small, pop­u­lated with com­mon­ers, ser­vants, sol­diers and what­not.:

+15 skill points related to your ele­vated social strata (his­tory, eti­quete, nego­ti­a­tion, dance, music, swim­ming, etc) plus 3 extra pro­fi­ciency points. You also have one extra social asset of your choice related to your advan­ta­geous upbring­ing (such as con­tacts, allies, etc).
You have prece­dence over most of the most lower nobles, plus great author­ity over all com­mon­ers (this serves as the perk asset such as longevity).


B ) Lord
You are of noble birth and a proper Lord, you enjoy all the perks asso­ci­ated with your caste. You have a noble title or is the heir to one, such as a baron or vis­count. You don’t own any actual land, except maybe a hold in a city or gar­ri­son or is a heir to one.
Besides being allowed sev­eral perks, being a noble has allowed you both in time and wealth to pur­sue a vari­ety of skills and pro­fi­cien­cies as you grew up unre­quited to the harsh real­i­ties of life:

+9 skill points related to your estate (his­tory, eti­quete, nego­ti­a­tion, dance, music, swim­ming, etc). +3 pro­fi­ciency points.


C) Gen­try
You are part of the petty nobil­ity. Maybe you were a dec­o­rated sol­dier that was knighted, or a dis­tin­guished ser­vant of the court that has earned the title of Baronet. You have a decent jold and some serfs, but don’t own land. You have right and priv­i­leges over the rest of com­mon­ers but must answer to those above you.

+3 skill points related to your strata (his­tory, ride, eti­quete, dance, etc) & 1 extra pro­fi­ciency point

D) Freemen
You are a mem­ber of the free class of what could be con­sid­ered a “mid­dle class”. You have the right to come and go and have prob­a­bly mas­tered a trade, includ­ing being a pro­fes­sional soldier/​mercenary.

E) Com­moner /​Serf
You spent most of your life indented to a fief, per­haps you were born a peas­ant and lived through the earth under a local lord, or per­haps you’ve been a loyal ser­vant to a noble, doing spe­cial­ized work or just being there.
You are now free but your lim­ited upbring­ing means you have a few short­com­ings regard­ing your learned abil­i­ties:

Player choice between the fol­low­ing: either –2 pro­fi­ciency points or –6 skill points or a mix of –1 pro­fi­ciency point and –3 skill points.

F) Slave /​Pris­oner
Hav­ing spent most of your life denied of any shred of inde­pen­dent action, you are now free to pur­sue your own life. Per­haps you were born a slave, and learned to keep quiet and turn down your head while clench­ing your fists think­ing of the day you would use them to punch your way to free­dom. Or maybe you’ve punched quite a few things before being thrown into a god for­saken dun­geon for so much time you can barely speak your own lan­guage. What­ever the case, this has caused a great deficit in your learn­ing:

2 pro­fi­ciency points &6 skill points, plus a neg­a­tive asset related to your time with­out freewill — Maybe you were mis­treated and are now lame or lack­ing an eye; per­haps the time you spent punch­ing the wall of your cell while think­ing bad thoughts has turned you into a blood­thirsty killer; or maybe now you have fits of berserk­ing rage as the mem­o­ries of your mis­treats come to sur­face while in com­bate; likely though, the nature of your free­dom has surely put your pre­vi­ous master(s) to sent for your man­hunt.
Either way, the marks of your enslave­ment are vis­i­ble even beyond your men­tal and social scars. You have a way or even a mark that tells you were once a pris­oner or a slave (per­haps you are branded a crim­i­nal, or you have the brand of a domi­nos), and you’ll prob­a­bly never ever get a rank or even relief, not while your per­pe­tra­tors live — which might be the whole point.

(this “stigma”, mim­ics some­what the perky asset of Enlight­ened culture.


Basi­cally, These Origins/​Social pick is an alter­na­tive to cul­ture (not mutu­ally exclu­sive). Its theme is Pro­fi­ciency + skill while cul­ture is skill + attribute. The perks of cul­ture is giv­ing +1 to attribute over the actual attribute, and allow­ing one to reach a big­ger poten­tial. The perks of social is, well, social priv­i­lege.


Well, thats about it. I’ve poorly trans­lated the above fluff, and I dont have the will to prop­erly do it, but you get the gist.

Thoughts on the tune up?

Thoughts on this pick?




P.s.: Good lord, that’s a lot (edited it out now) of B glasses…
Last Edit: 1 year 11 months ago by Anarak.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael, Allan

Tun­ing up pri­or­ity pick + a social pick for review 1 year 10 months ago #3954

  • Michael
  • Michael's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 756
  • Thank you received: 518
  • Karma: 12
Well, at least it’s the Khazra­jite Wastes, which is a really cool desert in a really cool set­ting! :P

As to your mon­ster of a post I would first like to com­ment on your cal­cu­la­tions to rebal­ance Pri­or­i­ties.

In brief, your cal­cu­la­tions are right.

The longer answer would be that the for­mu­las are a guide­line and not a totally fixed corset. For us it was most impor­tant to have inter­est­ing Picks. Our sec­ond pri­or­ity was to have the ben­e­fit of the var­i­ous Picks of every type (A to F) be com­pa­ra­ble across all the Pri­or­i­ties, so as to avoid dump Pri­or­i­ties and not to make Pick assign­ment a fore­gone con­clu­sion. For us it wasn’t impor­tant that every B exactly equals the effec­tive­ness of every other B, merely that they are roughly com­pa­ra­ble. So the guide­lines hold first and fore­most true to the mid-​range of the Picks but start to break down towards the end.

We find it most impor­tant to have mean­ing ful Pick-​packages. If the twin demands of hav­ing the effec­tive­ness of the Picks progress within every Pri­or­ity evenly along the curve we desire (steep at the ends, shal­low around the cen­tre) and hav­ing the effec­tive­ness of every Pick iden­ti­cal across all the Pri­or­i­ties at the same level can’t be fully met we are not unduly uncon­cerned. These demands are of course eas­ier met where the points involved are rel­a­tively finely grained, as with Skills, and more dif­fi­cult to meet where the gra­da­tion is more crude, as with Assets. Again, fun and mean­ing­ful pack­ages are our main con­cern.

That said your reworked table makes sense. I per­son­ally just think that that fol­low­ing the guide­lines like gospel does here and there unnec­es­sar­ily impose crip­pling lim­its.

Now, your social table.

First and fore­most I have to say that, in any pseudo-​European, pseudo-​medieval set­ting, there would be no lords with­out land. All noble titles are always keyed to land, not to per­sons. The per­son hold­ing the land has the title. The per­son hold­ing no land has no title. The sons of liv­ing (!) lords would gen­er­ally be accorded the sta­tus of nobil­ity, at least pro­vided and espe­cially if they have the funds to live like nobil­ity, but they would not stri­clty speak­ing be nobil­ity — just rich guys with a rich and pow­er­ful daddy to back them up, so you bet­ter tread care­fully around them. Once their dad­dies are dead and their broth­ers are hold­ing the title their for­tunes might change very much — or they might not, if they cosied up to their broth­ers in time or man­aged to find them­selves a nice posi­tion in gov­ern­ment, army or clergy. In which case they would become pow­er­ful offi­cials but not noble­men — unless their bosses grant them land and thus a title and there­fore makes them nobles in their own right.

So you see that your table basi­cally doesn’t work in such a set­ting, as what you term the B Pri­or­ity doesn’t exist.

What I per­son­ally don’t like is also that the A Pick isn’t suf­fi­ciently good. With all the other A Picks the A Pick def­i­nitely and eas­ily puts you into the best 0,1% of the pop­u­lace, and merely hold­ing a small fief doesn’t cut that. From how you describe the size of the fief and hold­ing in a social Pri­or­ity what you describe as the A Pick should imo actu­ally be the B Pick.

To con­tinue bash­ing you ;) : I also don’t hink that link­ing Skill points and Pro­fi­ciency points to a Social Pri­or­ity is a good idea. Within the tropes of a Sword & Sor­cery set­ting it isn’t a prob­lem link­ing these things to the Cul­ture Pri­or­ity, as we are here deal­ing with lit­er­ary tropes where all bar­bar­ians are strong, all deca­dents soft, and all degen­er­ates sav­age and, well, degen­er­ate. If you want a more real­is­tic game you can’t eas­ily wed social stand­ing and capa­bil­ity, as this would infer that all nobles know their arse from their tits, which we know isn’t really true. So I rec­om­mend throw­ing in Loot lev­els and social– and possession-​geared Assets instead of Skill and Pro­fi­ciency points. Which means that you would have to cre­ate a cou­ple of new Assets to cover things like sec­u­lar power and influ­ence and a larger fol­low­ing of fight­ing men etc. than cov­ered by the nor­mal Con­nec­tion Asset.

I have btw ten­ta­tively out­lined the bare bones of a Social Pri­or­ity in my first post in this thread here, and I still think that the scal­ing holds up. Nowa­days I would only throw in a few Poor or Good Assets for the A, B, F, and pos­si­bly E Picks.
Bow down: I am the emperor of dreams;
I crown me with the million-​colored sun
Of secret worlds incred­i­ble, and take
Their trail­ing skies for vest­ment when I soar.

Clark Ash­ton Smith, The Hashish Eater or The Apoc­a­lypse of Evil
Last Edit: 1 year 10 months ago by Michael.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Allan, Anarak

Tun­ing up pri­or­ity pick + a social pick for review 1 year 10 months ago #3955

  • Anarak
  • Anarak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 149
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 1
Thanks for the detailed and uncer­e­mo­ni­ous reply Michael :)

I’ll go ahead with the tweaked table and see how it goes as far as player feed­back and game bal­ance is con­cerned and return later with my find­ings.

Onto social:

I’ll take the his­tory les­son. I was under the impres­sion that a Lord’s son could also be called a Lord, even if as cour­tesy title, a Lord mean­ing any type of “proper” noble, i.e.: born into the class ? Thus dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing from the minor nobil­ity that could be granted by appointment/​purchased.

In-​game that would mean with a B that you were the heir to a house and its lands (or in line) but were con­sid­ered a Lord(proper noble) still and granted some sort of com­mand over a hold­ing of your own (or per­haps still liv­ing under daddy’s?).

Monar­chy in my coun­try was some­what whacky, last­ing less than 70 years, plus I don’t know enough of even the pseudo-​hierarchy of euro­pean feu­dal sys­tem to pre­tend any­thing big (as much as I like the sub­ject), so, yeah, i’ll take what­ever sug­ges­tion comes my way.

What I per­son­ally don’t like is also that the A Pick isn’t suf­fi­ciently good

Socially yes, but not regard­ing the bonuses. My first impulse was to allow Roy­alty as A pick. Then allow dukes, counts, etc. The prob­lem with allow­ing player char­ac­ters run­ning around as kings, dukes and princes (even counts or barons) is that, well, it com­pletelly changes the focus of the adven­ture. One thing is hav­ing a small land and leav­ing a wife/​husband or stew­ard to take charge while they go adven­tur­ing, another is hav­ing the con­trol of thou­sands in your hands from the get go, it has the poten­tial to either turn thins too easy –fuck Heart and diplo­macy, i’m the fuck­ing king, or too hard/​complex –yeah, lord­ship, we kind of need you here this time, the Taaramite horde is mov­ing to the east and the Khazis­tans want a piece of us too! Btw, both Zad­jite and Gha­zorite kings wants to marry one of their daugh­ters to you and will sever rela­tions if we dont enter­tain them. Oh-​almost for­got, the peas­ant rebels have bro­ken into the court­yard!

Dunno, might work, might be awe­some — there cer­tainly is a spot for Kull char­ac­ters — but as far as reg­u­lar gam­ing go, its bet­ter to have more hum­ble adven­tur­ers, leav­ing the rule-​thy-​kingdom for late game or final prize, if at all.

f you want a more real­is­tic game you can’t eas­ily wed social stand­ing and capa­bil­ity, as this would infer that all nobles know their arse from their tits, which we know isn’t really true

True, BUT, this isn’t a table to cre­ate NPCs, its to cre­ate awe­some PCs!

While obvi­ously not all (not even major­ity ) of nobles ktaftt, they DO have the chance to know more, with all the priv­i­lege and all. While a mediocre noble might squan­der this oppor­tu­nity away (like a lot of peo­ple nowa­days), and spend its time par­ty­ing with other nobles and just being mediocre, a more upstand­ing per­son (our heroes) fully enjoyed their posi­tion to learn more and train more –with­out hav­ing to toil the fields, row the gal­leys or sit in the dank cor­ner of a dun­geon.

Besides that, I really don’t like to feel obliged to allow PC’s to main­tain their pos­ses­sions and sta­tus all the time. I want to break them from time to time. I can’t have a player go A in social, start as a king or a duke and then bring up an inva­sion and have them lose every­thing, as much as I can’t take away skill or pro­fi­ciency points from the other play­ers.

So, per­haps, instead of sim­ply call­ing it a “social/​standing/​status” table, we’re bet­ter of call­ing it “Ori­gins” or “Upbring”.

That’s the train of thought that set me with such a “low” priv­i­lege for the nobler picks. Not that its wrong hav­ing a bet­ter hier­ar­chy, but its not for this game. I’ll take the his­tory les­son though.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.

Tun­ing up pri­or­ity pick + a social pick for review 1 year 10 months ago #3956

  • Michael
  • Michael's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 756
  • Thank you received: 518
  • Karma: 12
Anarak wrote:
I was under the impres­sion that a Lord’s son could also be called a Lord, even if as cour­tesy title, a Lord mean­ing any type of “proper” noble, i.e.: born into the class ? Thus dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing from the minor nobil­ity that could be granted by appointment/​purchased.

Well, under the Euro­pean feu­dal sys­tem there lit­er­ally is no nobil­ity with­out land. Nobody is just a “baron”, but always a baron of some place. It was only later, when the feu­dal sys­tem wasn’t used any­more for gov­ern­ing the land, that titles being tied to places lost its mean­ing — even though it never went away. Even today, when­ever a Euro­pean monarch cre­ates a new noble and thus a new title (usu­ally they revive a for­merly exist­ing, extinct one), the title is always tied to a clearly defined place. Always “of, von, de. etc.”, never just a title with­out a geo­graph­i­cal place.

And I am not sure what you mean by minor nobil­ity, pos­si­bly you are refer­ring to knights. Any­how, a monarch could have cre­ated any noble title, no mat­ter how exalted. He just needed to have the land, either some fief that some­how returned to the crown or oth­er­wise hand­ing out a bit of his own, royal land as a new fief. Of course, cre­at­ing a knight and hand­ing him three vil­lages was done a lot more fre­quently than cre­at­ing a duke and hand­ing him thou­sands of square miles of land, but that#s merely because three vil­lages to give away are eas­ier to come by then entire provices; the prin­ci­ple how­ever is exactly the same.

In the­ory, a monarch could of course cre­ate any title with any extent of land, but in prac­tice it would have been strange to make some­body a count and give him merely a small ham­let…

And any nobelmen’s son could indeed be called “lord”, yes – that’s just tread­ing care­fully around a rich guy with a rich and very pow­er­ful daddy, like I said. But don’t for­get that the main ben­e­fit is not just a pretty title, but that actual noble sta­tus used to carry very hefty legal ben­e­fits that could in some cul­tures and at the begin­ning of the mid­dle ages even go so far that a noble could kill any non-​noble with­out any legal con­se­quences what­so­ever. So if the social aspect is impor­tant for a game you need to dif­fer­en­ti­ate very clearly between some­body being really noble or some­body just being treated def­er­en­tially, as even a vastly rich but still com­mon mer­chant might be – or a noble’s son who is not going to inherit.

Mod­ern Britain can serve as a good exam­ple of who has or hasn’t a title, as they still retain the type of reg­u­la­tions of who is and isn’t titled as in the mid­dle ages, but with­out any real legal ben­e­fit. Mod­ern knight­hoods there are a dif­fer­ent mat­ter, but the actual peers of the realm aren’t. Let’s use the Duke of X as exam­ple:

The duke’s son and heir has no title what­so­ever. I think he is out of cour­tesy addressed as esquire or some­thing like that, but that’s cour­tesy, a rich and pow­er­ful man’s son and heir being treated with cour­tesy.
Younger sons would in this instance be the same. Nei­ther would even be a knight, a Sir.

If the duke is not just Duke of X but also Earl of Y:
The duke would merely use the title duke and the title earl would be passed along to his son and heir, who would thus be a proper noble­man.
Younger sons – as above. Cour­tesy address, but no title.
When the duke dies his son and heir becomes the new duke and retains the title earl – unless he already has a liv­ing son, in which case the title earl is passed on to him.

If the duke is not just Duke of X but also Earl of Y and Vis­count of Z:
The duke would merely use the high­est title (duke) and pass on lower ones to direct descen­dants, if there are any.
The duke’s son and heir would be earl. If he in turn already has a liv­ing heir, that liv­ing heir would be the vis­count.
If the earl has no son the duke’s sec­ond son would be the vis­count. The moment the earl has a son this son would become the vis­count and the duke’s sec­ond son would lose that title.
Third and younger sons again as above – cour­tesy address but no title, not even a knight­hood.
The moment the duke dies and the earl becomes duke the broth­ers of the for­mer earl and new duke lose all their titles, which all con­verge on the new duke, titles being only handed down to direct descen­dants, not broth­ers. If the new duke already has son, he would now be the earl, with the duke being both duke and vis­count – unless he has a sec­ond son or his first son already has a son in turn, who would then be the vis­count.
And so on, you get the pic­ture.

And now you cer­tainly also get the pic­ture why it was so impor­tant that younger sons make a career in either the clergy or the mil­i­tary or civil ser­vice. They inherit noth­ing, nei­ther land nor title, and once their daddy dies are pretty much on their own, and pretty much with­out means, unless their brother is both wealthy and gen­er­ous towards them. So as a social Pick your B Pick is pretty much worth­less. Even a knight with a fief of a sin­gle vil­lage would be bet­ter off, as he would actu­ally be nobil­ity and also have an income, nei­ther of which the lord with­out land has.


Anarak wrote:
Dunno, might work, might be awe­some — there cer­tainly is a spot for Kull char­ac­ters — but as far as reg­u­lar gam­ing go, its bet­ter to have more hum­ble adven­tur­ers, leav­ing the rule-​thy-​kingdom for late game or final prize, if at all.

It of course depends on the game you intend to play, as you so rightly point out your­self, how impor­tant pol­i­tick­ing and social inter­ac­tion are going to be — but when you go to the length of cre­at­ing a social Pri­or­ity I would assume rather impor­tant. And if this aspect is impor­tant I would at least make the A Pick equal a very pow­er­ful noble, one who has at least an ample score of landed (knightly) vas­sals him­self, and the B Pick the equal of rich landed noble with a hand­ful of landed (knightly) vas­sals. Social oomph, because it is the social Pri­or­ity.

It’s not as if the game would thus turn auto­mat­i­cally into a fief-​micromanaging game. Of course, any player with half a brain should be aware that some fief man­ag­ing will be nec­es­sary if cre­at­ing a landed noble, but those who don’t want to do that need not take a high social Pri­or­ity. You can play a knight with a tiny fief of two vil­lages with­out being too tied down by it while still enjoy­ing all the ben­fits of nobil­ity. But that way if you want to play one of the movers and shak­ers of the nation whose name fre­quently comes up in court and privy coun­cil, you at least can.

Anarak wrote:
True, BUT, this isn’t a table to cre­ate NPCs, its to cre­ate awe­some PCs!

Indeed, and that’s why I chose to write “would infer”, not “would mean”.

Still, your obser­va­tions about sta­tus offer­ing oppor­tu­in­ity are of course right. It just strikes me as strange to cre­ate a social Pri­or­ity and then have the ben­e­fits derived from this Pri­or­ity being mainly non social– or status-​related. It’s my opin­ion that a social or sta­tus Pri­or­ity should first and fore­most give ben­e­fits to social stand­ing and sta­tus and only then, and to a clearly lesser degree, to Skills and what­not. But that’s merely a pref­er­ence, even though a strong one, not a press­ing rea­son.

Anarak wrote:
Besides that, I really don’t like to feel obliged to allow PC’s to main­tain their pos­ses­sions and sta­tus all the time.

Pos­ses­sions absolutely, but sta­tus is a deal breaker with a social Pri­or­ity. By choos­ing to play a, say, landed baron, the player not only told you that that’s the social sta­tus he wants for his PC, he also paid for it. Tak­ing away the sta­tus would be the same as tak­ing away the pur­chased Pro­fi­ciency points and then ask­ing the player to work to regain them. A clear deal-​breaker.

If a player pur­chases some­thing (meta-​game, I mean), it is his, like the Con­nec­tion Poor or Good Asset. With it, even if one par­tic­u­lar con­nec­tion gets destroyed, a new one will pop up, because it’s paid for.
Bow down: I am the emperor of dreams;
I crown me with the million-​colored sun
Of secret worlds incred­i­ble, and take
Their trail­ing skies for vest­ment when I soar.

Clark Ash­ton Smith, The Hashish Eater or The Apoc­a­lypse of Evil
Last Edit: 1 year 10 months ago by Michael.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
Mod­er­a­tors: Mozusuke, Phil, Michael
Time to cre­ate page: 0.203 sec­onds