Artorius: Those who desire old age need not apply

[Roog]

I see it as a distinct possibility but not a given.

As in, I can see people being able to preserve a character to the end of the campaign without having to do anything out-of-the-ordinarily cautious.

I wouldn't say it -will- happen.

Your choices will influence this. Sometimes bold but risky things work - you get the success and get away from the risk. Sometimes they don't - you get the risk before the plan has a chance to work.

I can give you a "if you do X" for certain events, but I can't spell out a full campaign with all the variables (including, for want of a better term, random events).

So taking the mid range of the campaign outline you gave before (~24 battles vrs inferior opponents, ~12 battles vrs equals, ~4 battles vrs superior opponents):

You would expect that any player could "preserve a character to the end of the campaign without having to do anything out-of-the-ordinarily cautious", but you would expect there to be one or more character deaths, and you would not be particularly surprised to see about as many total charcter deaths as players or even twice that.

Would that be a fair characterisation of the expected level of danger for the campaign?

[Elennsar]

Roughly. I would like to make sure that character deaths aren't -likely- to be higher than the number of players (I am using hero points for a reason, and it isn't to let people do higher-than-could-otherwise-be-achieved successes), but that's as good a sum up as is going to happen.

Quite possible to have none, probable to have one or more, and not overly surprising (it'd take some bad luck) to have a group of four be replaced. Twice that...you must be taking your obligation to be where the fighting is hottest very seriously indeed.

[Roog]

Roughly. I would like to make sure that character deaths aren't -likely- to be higher than the number of players (I am using hero points for a reason, and it isn't to let people do higher-than-could-otherwise-be-achieved successes), but that's as good a sum up as is going to happen.

Quite possible to have none, probable to have one or more, and not overly surprising (it'd take some bad luck) to have a group of four be replaced. Twice that...you must be taking your obligation to be where the fighting is hottest very seriously indeed.

OK, take 0 to 1/2-number-of-players to number-of-players as a reasonable band of forseen deaths.

Using Absentminded_Wizard's approximations of % of victories gives an average of 15 defeats for the party over the campaign; if we assume that the character's chance of death is approximatly proportional to their chance of defeat, then the chances of death for any given PC in any given battle can be approximatly 1/30th of their chance of defeat.

Inferior opponent - 0.8% chance of death (approx)
Equal opponent - 1.7% chance of death (approx)
Superior opponent - 2.5% chance of death (approx)

These chances can be redistributed, but even if they are all loaded onto the superior opponent (so there is no chance of death vrs other opponents) you still can't take the chance of death vrs superior opponent over 12.5%.

[Elennsar]

Ignoring hero points.

Ignoring retreating before you get killed.

Ignoring anything else.

[Roog]

Those are the chances when you go into the fight, before you know what happens.

Ignoring hero points.

No. It takes hero point into account. You did not say how many deaths you would expect if there were no hero points, so the calculation takes hero points into account.

Ignoring retreating before you get killed.

No. The estimated chance of death is the odds of death before the battle starts. Sometimes characters will decide to retreat and then do it sucessfully, those charcters are part of the % who survive. There is no way to know before the battle if the characters that you are watching will be survive or not.

Ignoring anything else.

No. Ignoring factors that would make the game not fit within the expected band as you have described it. If other factors change these odds, then the game will not be the one you described to us.

[Elennsar]

No. It takes hero point into account. You did not say how many deaths you would expect if there were no hero points, so the calculation takes hero points into account.

The calculation demonstrates exactly why I dislike people asking for specific numbers - they come up with "in order for the statistics to be low, it is impossible for there to be a meaningful chance anywhere."

No. The estimated chance of death is the odds of death before the battle starts. Sometimes characters will decide to retreat and then do it sucessfully, those charcters are part of the % who survive. There is no way to know before the battle if the characters that you are watching will be survive or not.

And nor should there be, which making the odds overwhelmingly against death does.

Having a roughly 2.5% chance of death against a superior opponent is a chance so slim as to be essentially meaningless in any given fight.

That is not a meaningful combat. That is a fight so easy that you could do it with your off hand and still win most of the time.

Borrrrrrringgggggggg.

No. Ignoring factors that would make the game not fit within the expected band as you have described it. If other factors change these odds, then the game will not be the one you described to us.

The game will have a higher chance of death if and when "roll vs. death" comes up and if you want to overcome it you are going to have to actually -do something- to win.

I don't expect PCs to be massacred, but I don't want them to be shielded by the hand of God, either.

If that leads to a higher fatality rate, that's preferable then a "virtual immunity to death" shield.

[Roog]

Having a roughly 2.5% chance of death against a superior opponent is a chance so slim as to be essentially meaningless in any given fight.

That is not a meaningful combat. That is a fight so easy that you could do it with your off hand and still win most of the time.

Borrrrrrringgggggggg.

Thats fine, just don't expect the campaign to have the death rate that you described.

Just remember that that is not an easy fight - it is a fight that you will lose 75% of the time. But only 2.5% of those loses will involve your death, the rest of the time there will be some other price for defeat. And since we are talking about a campaign where all battles that are focused on are significant, that price should be significant.

[Elennsar]

Having a 3% chance of death means that the "you have to retreat or you will not be around to fight another day." reason becomes a fething -joke-.

If you want to have "probably not going to die", "probably not going to fight to the bitter end" needs to be done -first-.

[Roog]

Having a 3% chance of death means that the "you have to retreat or you will not be around to fight another day." reason becomes a fething -joke-.

Not really. You never retreat immediatly from a battle - that would be a joke. You retreat when the situation looks dire.

If retreating works, then that can easily be one of the factors in the low death rate. If you choices are between likely death and route, then you are free to choose likely death, but most people will chose route. Most people end up not dying most of the time.

If you want to have "probably not going to die", "probably not going to fight to the bitter end" needs to be done -first-.

It does not matter what I want - its what you want that counts.

[Elennsar]

The point is, the situation actually has to -be- dire for that.

[Roog]

The point is, the situation actually has to -be- dire for that.

It can be. Quite easily in fact. The stats for death rate do not tell you how or why people die. If the situation is dire if you stay, but there is an easy way out, then most people will take that way out. That gives a low overall death-rate, but does not make the situation for anyone who decides to stay any less dire.

[Elennsar]

And of course, facing opposition which can keep up with you is improbable.

Sometimes that will be true...but expect enemies to kill your horse/s if they notice you have an advantage by being mounted, which they will.

[Parthenon]

Here are some of the things you've said:

---

Forty fights of consequence.

Barring tactics that turn things around, you have to have AT LEAST a 10% chance to lose. (your likelyhood of being able to have those tactics can be anywhere from 100% to 0%, and has to do with you and the details I can't and won't try to predict).

You have to, if things work out to threaten your death (which may or may not be much more unlikely than these odds), face at least a 10% chance of dying for it to be a serious risk.

Inferior:
50-70% of the fights. ( 20-28 )
Assuming opponents capable of actual opposition, up to 90% chance of winning.

Equal:
20-40% of the fights ( 8-16 )
50% chance of -losing- (whatever the chance of -dying- is, since you can beat the enemy and get killed, or lose and stay alive).

Superior:
10% of the fights. ( 4 )
Versus superior opponents: Up to 90% chance of losing.
Having a roughly 2.5% chance of death against a superior opponent is a chance so slim as to be essentially meaningless in any given fight.

---

Anything I've got wrong?

---

Assuming not, I'm going to try some stuff. Lets imagine a group who are all playing this for the first time. They don't understand all the stats and they haven't really looked at battles in depth so they don't understand why some tactics work and others don't.
They also keep forgetting things like hero points. They won't use tactics to reduce death and probably won't notice when it is a good time to retreat.


At the beginning, most groups will be like this. You have to take this sort of group into consideration.

Heres when I'm going to estimate chances.

Lets say that for the first 1/4 of the campaign (the first 10 fights) they use no tactics and lack of hero points. If they're dead by then they give up using the RPG because they can't get to grips with it and don't understand it well enough to have fun. What are the chances of that happening?

If we assume that using no tactics we have the following chances of DEATH.
Inferior: 5%
Equal: 10%
Superior: 15%

The chances of surviving the first 1/4 of the campaign is 0.85 * 0.9^3 * 0.95^6 = 0.45549969

With these chances of death, almost half the groups who try this RPG will give up less than a quarter of the way through because they don't understand the rules and tactics and they die too easily.

With these probabilities and needing mastery of the game, the RPG will only be for those who already play it. It will be hard to learn and few will bother. You would almost be making an RPG for you and your friends at that point. This is a reasonable goal if this is what you want to do, but if you want to make an RPG for lots of people this isn't going to work.

---

My suggestion: if you want tactics to be necessary and there to be a reasonable chance of losing, then reduce the death to when you lose more than three encounters in a row. Even if you fight against three superior opponents in a row, you will have less than one percent chance of death, but it will be easy to see how likely you are to die and on that third fight you will be aware how easy it is to die. It will give confidence to try out tactics without instant death, give you time to be aware of the statistics and so help mastery of the game. Also, the GM could give easier fights after you lose to reduce the chance of death for new players. This idea isn't complete but fleshed out it could be what you want.

[Elennsar]

I would like to have "if you're skilled, you'll probably survive"...I do not want to have "your opponents have a minimal chance of killing you." in a game where you have a better chance than that of killing them (and saying "but the PCs are special!" is missing the point...an equal is someone who is just as important to his side as you are to yours.)

Ideally, the starting PCs will do well and be able to beat the fact being a Companion is a highly risky job.

Making it so that it takes either the probabilities of rolling badly striking you down after a long campaign (because the odds of any given encoutner doing so are minimal) or great stupidity on the part of the players for PCs to die is greatly undesirable.

[violence in the media]

So, these Hero points--what do you envision them actually doing?

Can I spend them to:

Boost one of my own attacks? Defense rolls? Soak rolls? Any roll made by my soldiers?

Lower any rolls made by my opposition?

Retcon the battle? Example: "Ah crap, they have horsemen. Let me spend a Hero point and pretend I foresaw that and equipped my foot soldiers with pikes when we were back at camp. Also, we're outnumbered, so let's spend another point to put us in a more advantageous location."


You keep talking about the choices the players make. What kind of choices are you envisioning them making here? Don't give us generalities, we can expand the list of specifics later on. You have two arenas of combat that you've presented so far, single/small skirmish (the party) and one where you control troops.

Focusing on the single combat first, what sort of choices do you expect players to make here to influence what happens? Do you have stances? Are players expected to switch between offensive, balanced, and defensive postures during the fight? Do you have specialized moves? Does it matter if I'm using a spear, a mace, a sword, or an axe? How much? Can I switch weapons in the melee? Do we have facing? How mobile are the players expected to be? When should I use a Hero point? Do I have any special powers I can call upon?

If I'm controlling troops am I going to be disallowed any tactics that are not historical or thematic for the game? Are the options for what to do going to be clearly presented to new players? How much control do I have over my troops? Am I commanding them on the regiment level? Smaller groupings? Are you adopting the total information stance that fantasy war games, like Warhammer and Warmachine, use? Are battles going to be played out with miniatures, or are they going to be text descriptions? "I move my horsemen around to flank. Ok, his wizard stops lobbing fireballs at your archers and turns to deal with this new threat." Is this battle being conducted versus the GM, or the NPC he's controlling? As in, if the NPC is supposed to be a brilliant tactician, but the GM is not, does he get a roll or something to see/undo my plans? Suppose the NPCs "tactician" skill is twice my PCs?

Edited to reiterate, because it's important: How much success to you expect new or inexperienced groups to have with your game? Where does "fun" rank in relation to "historical faithfulness" to risk and tactics? Keep in mind that, at least as evidenced by this board, that not many people share your definition of fun.

[Elennsar]

If you're interested in design, I'll get to those when they come up.

Some of those are "yes.", I can say that in advance. Some are "No."

Some I would like to discuss before decisions are made.

Also, you forget one thing:

You are, in a way, Artorius's bodyguard (or rather, part of it). There are times when you are part of -his- unit.

So. First priority here, and because I would like to get to things as I sort the basics out rather than try to answer all the complex questions first.

What physical and mental characteristics do we need here, and how should they be broken up?

You're doing roughly historical (early era) knight types here, so having stats for Strength and Constitution (as D&D names them) are probably advisible.

I am not planning at present on using any existing system, I want to sort out the basics before seeing what dice and such to use. That's step 2. But without knowing what level of detail in terms of attributes/characteristics/whatever is necessary/desired, no point figuring out what system to use.

Edited to reiterate, because it's important: How much success to you expect new or inexperienced groups to have with your game? Where does "fun" rank in relation to "historical faithfulness" to risk and tactics? Keep in mind that, at least as evidenced by this board, that not many people share your definition of fun.

#1: Not much. (Since I see no damn point rolling up a new character, I don't mind if someone who has a starting sheet they want to use, assuming its valid, reusing it at the begining. Later on, when events by experience have come up, that doesn't work.)

#2: If you're not interested to a fairly good extent in historical faithfulness in regards to risk and tactics, this game is not for you.

Naturally, it is a version of history told from the perspective that Heroes Matter - that's part of the assumptions about human ability to built into the rules, but it is grounded fairly heavily in history.

How much that will change and tweak to suit various things I'd like to change and tweak and which are desirable and reasonable, I'm not sure.

I posted a link to a review of The King's Peace for a reason...while I think that goes a bit further than I'd like on women-can-be-warriors-just-as-easily, a female Companion is perfectly viable for a PC...its just that instead of something like 40-60, we're talking more like 15-85 or something to that effect.

Doesn't mean women can't accomplish things quite admirable and respected as much as anything men can do, but plain and simple, there are not many women who have the strength and so on for heavy cavalry.

Ignoring that to make a more gender equal setting is one of the "hurts my suspension of disbelief" things I want to avoid.

The main thing I want to do is this.

Being a hero is tough.
Being a hero is possible.
Heroes should not expect to get old, but nor is it unheard of.

For the most part, human capacity as shown on Earth is desired as the realm of what characters have. This is deliberately looking at the examples of guys running five blocks after being stabbed through the heart a lot more than the people who fall down the stairs and break their head end, so some level of action hero is desired.

Just a very restrained one. If this was an action movie, it would be on the gritty end. If this -was- history, it would be on the heroic end.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Elennsar, I was going to respond point-by-point to your response to my post, but I don't feel like going back to the previous page.

I think Martin and others have covered the idea that all games have a win/loss probability, even if the game only involves player choice, with no luck whatsoever. Now, granted, the more choice factors into the probability, the less likely you are to figure it out precisely. Nevertheless, having even a ballpark figure to work with as a basis for rule design works better than a bunch of platitudes about characters and their choices. The approach you've been taking ("No math! This is too complex for math!") is like asking a carpenter to build you a cabinet or a coffee table but instructing him/her not to use hammers, nails, or wood.

Then there's this:

The calculation demonstrates exactly why I dislike people asking for specific numbers - they come up with "in order for the statistics to be low, it is impossible for there to be a meaningful chance anywhere."

It sounds suspiciously like you're saying, "Don't use math because it gives me results I don't like." Not false results, just results you don't like.

And BTW, I'm pretty sure the concept of ransoming people was known to both the Romans and to many tribal cultures. Furthermore, since you're not doing a strictly historical campaign, you can easily insert such things. And the larger point is you need to make sure loss almost never equals TPK in a game with these average probabilities because the odds of winning all combats are so many orders of magnitude under 1% that it would take an incredible combination of tactical genius and luck to even get the odds that high.

[violence in the media]

Is this supposed to be a historial wargame? Perhaps with some RPG elements bolted on? Is it supposed to be the reverse? I'm trying to envision what play of this game would look like.

What would a starting adventure look be? What foes do you face? Is there an assumed "right way" to do things?

What would the play space look like? Do you need terrain and minis? How complex is the character sheet? What else do you need to play?

Would anyone's wife or girlfriend be interested in playing this game, assuming they weren't overly interested in history or wargaming?

How adversarial is the GM? What keeps the GMs power in check?

You've got to get past this "Be a Hero!" thing and all the waffling you're doing and start providing concrete answers to specific questions if you want to get anywhere with this. Your answers can change over time, so don't feel like you're locked into specifics. Also, please realize that dice will hit the table at some point and, at that point, math will enter your game and do things you're not entirely happy with. We will try to make the math conform to your vision as much as possible, but you need to work with us.

[MartinHarper]

Elennsar, I hear you saying that, in your game, skilled players should be able to get through the campaign to a victory without incurring much risk of death, and that unskilled players are doomed to almost certain death. I hear you saying that it should be all about player skill and player decisions, rather than dice rolls and luck.

This contrasts to most games I play, where there is a variable difficulty level, such that skilled players can play on a higher difficulty level, and unskilled players can play on a lower difficulty level, and both can face obstacles that challenge them.

What motivates your decision to make your game different to most others in this respect?

And of course, facing opposition which can keep up with you is improbable.

Sometimes that will be true...but expect enemies to kill your horse/s if they notice you have an advantage by being mounted, which they will.

Just because the opposition can keep up with you does not mean they will kill you. Other options include:
* Capture (leading to imprisonment or ransom or perhaps recruitment).
* Inflicting serious wounds and leaving for dead.
* Escape via disguise or stealth rather than by speed.

What proportion of defeats do you think should lead to death?

[Parthenon]

What physical and mental characteristics do we need here, and how should they be broken up?

You're doing roughly historical (early era) knight types here, so having stats for Strength and Constitution (as D&D names them) are probably advisible.

I am not planning at present on using any existing system, I want to sort out the basics before seeing what dice and such to use. That's step 2. But without knowing what level of detail in terms of attributes/characteristics/whatever is necessary/desired, no point figuring out what system to use.

That may not be the best way of doing it. You seem to be saying: Choose the statistics, then work out what you can do with them.

Shouldn't it be more: Work out what characters can do and work out what ranges of statistics are needed to do each task.


Your plan seems to be, for example,

1: There is a Strength and a Constitution score
2: Hitpoints are 10 * Constitution
3: Damage is 3d6 + Strength per hit

However, then you find out that Strength doesn't have much effect compared to Constitution so you can take up to your Constitution bonus in hits before you die, which means that some characters are much tougher than you want and some are much weaker.


However, if you try it the second way, then you would do something like:

1: Each character can take 2-5 hits without dying
2: Hitpoints are 3 + Constitution
3: Each hit does 2-3 damage, with the actual damage being static and based on your Strength

This ends up with the same statistics, but rules that simulate what you want.

Edited to reiterate, because it's important: How much success to you expect new or inexperienced groups to have with your game? Where does "fun" rank in relation to "historical faithfulness" to risk and tactics? Keep in mind that, at least as evidenced by this board, that not many people share your definition of fun.

#1: Not much. (Since I see no damn point rolling up a new character, I don't mind if someone who has a starting sheet they want to use, assuming its valid, reusing it at the begining. Later on, when events by experience have come up, that doesn't work.)

#2: If you're not interested to a fairly good extent in historical faithfulness in regards to risk and tactics, this game is not for you.

Okay, so you don't really care about how much fun beginning players have. Thats fine, as long as everyone is aware that it is not a game for beginners.

So, who is this game for? What sort of person is likely to play this RPG rather than Risk, Civilisation or Kriegsspiel (see baduin's thread)?

Naturally, it is a version of history told from the perspective that Heroes Matter - that's part of the assumptions about human ability to built into the rules, but it is grounded fairly heavily in history.

I just realised that I don't remember you saying how the PCs can affect the world. All you seem to be doing is one HUGE escort mission escorting the Dux, splitting up every now and then to kill some people.

Is it just getting the Dux to where he needs to be? Is it stopping the assassinations and keeping him alive? Can you change his mind about where he is going, his plans for laws, his rulings on the peasantry? Is there any diplomacy?

In what ways do the Heroes Matter?


EDIT:

Since I see no damn point rolling up a new character, I don't mind if someone who has a starting sheet they want to use, assuming its valid, reusing it at the begining. Later on, when events by experience have come up, that doesn't work.

Wait, are you really saying that the individual character doesn't matter until they have accomplished some stuff already? That sounds to me like the descriptions of 1ed where the fighters don't get named until they are level 5 or so.

Not really making a point here, just wondering if others get the same feeling about it.

[Elennsar]

Nevertheless, having even a ballpark figure to work with as a basis for rule design works better than a bunch of platitudes about characters and their choices. The approach you've been taking ("No math! This is too complex for math!") is like asking a carpenter to build you a cabinet or a coffee table but instructing him/her not to use hammers, nails, or wood.

The problem is that there are -several figures at work- here. How likely is your opponent to hit you? How likely are you to make your defense roll? How likely is it that he hit something vital? How likely is it that your armor will protect you from his attack (entirely)? How likely is it that if he hit something vital and your armor didn't protect entirely that you'll fail? Do you have a hero point to twist things around so it wasn't as bad as it looks?

Expecting an answer for "how likely you are to die" means I have to come up with at least a rough answer for all of those.

It sounds suspiciously like you're saying, "Don't use math because it gives me results I don't like." Not false results, just results you don't like.

Not intentionally. But it does come up with "we figure that you can't be in any real danger ever.", which is not desired. I would like there to be real danger that can be reduced to near those odds, perhaps, but not start from those odds.

And BTW, I'm pretty sure the concept of ransoming people was known to both the Romans and to many tribal cultures. Furthermore, since you're not doing a strictly historical campaign, you can easily insert such things.

I can do a lot of things. The question is, why?

And the larger point is you need to make sure loss almost never equals TPK in a game with these average probabilities because the odds of winning all combats are so many orders of magnitude under 1% that it would take an incredible combination of tactical genius and luck to even get the odds that high.

Or bringing in something that beats the crap out of what would otherwise be the odds.

Is this supposed to be a historial wargame? Perhaps with some RPG elements bolted on? Is it supposed to be the reverse? I'm trying to envision what play of this game would look like.

Closer to the reverse.

How adversarial is the GM? What keeps the GMs power in check?

The fact that the GM is presumably a friend of the otehr players.

You've got to get past this "Be a Hero!" thing and all the waffling you're doing and start providing concrete answers to specific questions if you want to get anywhere with this. Your answers can change over time, so don't feel like you're locked into specifics.

And you have got to get past this "give me a concrete answer before you've begun figuring out which answers you want."

I don't -know- if I want "mail armor is proof against the stoutest blow" or "mail armor will save your life, but you can still be seriously hurt."

We will try to make the math conform to your vision as much as possible, but you need to work with us.

Then stop looking for concrete and specific answers involving the math before the "what things are in the game to be represented" question is answered.

This contrasts to most games I play, where there is a variable difficulty level, such that skilled players can play on a higher difficulty level, and unskilled players can play on a lower difficulty level, and both can face obstacles that challenge them.

To some extent, this is deliberately a hard campaign (If we go easy, normal, hard, expert, doomed). You don't need to be -very- skilled to do well, but you do need to actually have some level of skill.

What motivates your decision to make your game different to most others in this respect?

If it was easy (for the characters), it wouldn't merit going down into legend.

What proportion of defeats do you think should lead to death?

The portion in which you are mortally wounded.

Enemies have an interest in you guys being dead - remember, the Companions are Artorius's guard and most trusted lieutenants.

Inflicting serious wounds and leaving for dead is perfectly possible, but it has to actually be possible (however much PCs -can- beat this, they have to be beating something) for someone to die on their own like that.

Because "enemies leave the heroes for dead instead of actually finishing them off." when there's every reason to suspect the heroes will not die is a "Kill him, you fool!" moment in the same sense as "Don't enter that building! He has a gun!"

Now, PCs are among the people who can do improbable feats without hoping the dice are improbable. But if you want to survive combat, trusting that your enemy thinks "the vultures can get him." is not something to be too confident in.

Capture has various issues.

To all: If you are interested in design, stop looking for the blueprints and start realizing a lot of the decisions that will answer "how likely are you to die" depend on what those -are-, which is in the process of being hammered out.

Shouldn't it be more: Work out what characters can do and work out what ranges of statistics are needed to do each task.

It is meant to be "what statistics do we need/want, and what are we overlooking?"

Okay, so you don't really care about how much fun beginning players have. Thats fine, as long as everyone is aware that it is not a game for beginners.

I don't really care how easy a time beginning players have. I really, really don't care for the fun of people who assume that losing is unfun and that the lesson is to quit rather than to learn.

So, who is this game for? What sort of person is likely to play this RPG rather than Risk, Civilisation or Kriegsspiel (see baduin's thread)?

The kind of person who wants more roleplaying than a wargame, and wants to deal with something that is of Earth and of legend...both the fact combat can be very gritty and the fact humans can beat little things like adversity.

People who find the idea of the Arthurian time in regards to establishing -what makes Arthur so great anyway- interesting, but not so much the romances and such.

I just realised that I don't remember you saying how the PCs can affect the world. All you seem to be doing is one HUGE escort mission escorting the Dux, splitting up every now and then to kill some people.

Because the answer is really hard to give.

Potentially:

Can you change his mind about where he is going, his plans for laws, his rulings on the peasantry? Is there any diplomacy?

Yes, yes, and yes. And probably.

In what ways do the Heroes Matter?

I am using the word Companions intentionally. You are among Artorius's trusted vassals and (hopefully) close friends. You are among the people who can influence him and as Companions you have a certain level of authority in your own right.

The Dux is human too. He has moments of bad temper, he has moments of despair, he has moments of a variety of things.

This, if it was history and went down in story, would be the tale of the Lord and His Companions.

I can't answer how much you can affect the setting very well at the moment, but I can say that you are one of the people who can shake things. And how seirously you take the ideals matters. You can build a kingdom that will stand as an example of the very best humanity can do.

You can build a kingdom that can hold against the barbarians until the end of time, but which becomes harsh and cruel and oppressive.

You can do a lot of things.

How much is going to depend on what you do. I'm serious - if you play a character who is actively involved and takes part in Artorius's councils and talks with him one on one and so on, you're going to be a lot more than "soandso the Bold, bravest of the Companions."

Not that being the bravest is mutually exclusive.

Wait, are you really saying that the individual character doesn't matter until they have accomplished some stuff already? That sounds to me like the descriptions of 1ed where the fighters don't get named until they are level 5 or so.

God-Emperor no.

You get to basically say "Look, this didn't really happen." three times (Maybe two.) early on. You get hit with a fatal blow - it could have happened, but you (whatever, come up with something amusing or interesting or beleivable, as long as it could have happened).

I don't see the point of drawing up a sheet for Sir Bob after Sir Steve meets his untimely demise when you really wanted to play Sir Steve. Having to write a new character sheet all over again is unnecessary and unfun.

I'm positive the wording came out wrong the first time, but that's my intent.

Your initial sheet is safe to reuse until either a) you're out of chances or b) you're past the initial phase of the game (in which case you're out of chances by default, but I'm thinking about something to deal with that...as an amateur historian, I love what-ifs as something to examine and study, and I intend to work that in if I can...but more on that -after- we get there.).

"No one important dies in chapter 1." basically.

If you can come up with a way Sir Steve could have avoided death and dismemberment, he did. Hero points not necessary (and not issued...those come after you're a person who has ahown you can make a difference, which if you're at all competent will happen in this period. If not, we need to check why...this isn't meant to be hard.).

In chapter 2, things are going to happen that are going to stick with you barring the usual mechanics for dealing with that. So be prepared. Your dice are relevant. Your decisions are relevant. Your losses can suck.

[norms29]

Nevertheless, having even a ballpark figure to work with as a basis for rule design works better than a bunch of platitudes about characters and their choices. The approach you've been taking ("No math! This is too complex for math!") is like asking a carpenter to build you a cabinet or a coffee table but instructing him/her not to use hammers, nails, or wood.

The problem is that there are -several figures at work- here. How likely is your opponent to hit you? How likely are you to make your defense roll? How likely is it that he hit something vital? How likely is it that your armor will protect you from his attack (entirely)? How likely is it that if he hit something vital and your armor didn't protect entirely that you'll fail? Do you have a hero point to twist things around so it wasn't as bad as it looks?

Expecting an answer for "how likely you are to die" means I have to come up with at least a rough answer for all of those.

actually, I think the intention is that once we have a rough answer for "how likely are you to die", that WILL GIVE US the answer to those other questions.

[Elennsar]

That may be the idea, but the likelyhood of you dying is -based- on the answers to all of those -and most encounters don't have the same answers.

Your chances of being hit by a berserker are not higher, but his chance of doing serious damage to you is higher, but his chance of being killed by you is higher.

Does that balance out? Maybe. Maybe not.

Should it? That has to be answered first.

[violence in the media]

The problem is that there are -several figures at work- here. How likely is your opponent to hit you? How likely are you to make your defense roll? How likely is it that he hit something vital? How likely is it that your armor will protect you from his attack (entirely)? How likely is it that if he hit something vital and your armor didn't protect entirely that you'll fail? Do you have a hero point to twist things around so it wasn't as bad as it looks?

Expecting an answer for "how likely you are to die" means I have to come up with at least a rough answer for all of those.

Ok, so you've given us an answer here. Based on the way you structured your answer, combat involves these things:

1. An attack roll.
2. A defense roll.
3. A location hit roll.
4. An armor soak roll.
5. A damage roll.
6. Want to spend a Hero point?

Ok, so let's pretend that an equal opponent has a 50/50 to hit you. Well, if we give you a 50/50 defense roll, his actual chance of hitting you is 25%. Considering you have a bunch of other defense type rolls coming after this one, I'd assume you want to wallop people more often than 1 in 4 swings. That might be a factor of your armor as well, it makes you less likely to make a defense (parry/dodge) roll.

How distinct do you want the location hit roll? Do you just want chest, arms, legs, and head? Do you want to separate out hands and feet? Upper torso and lower torso?

Do you want a limit to how much damage armor can soak? In the sense that if someone gets a mighty hit in for 10 damage, the armor will soak a max of 5 or 8 or whatever? I'm getting ahead of myself, you apparently want the damage roll to come after the armor determines how much it will soak, correct?

With the damage roll, how much damage equals a serious injury?

[norms29]

That may be the idea, but the likelyhood of you dying is -based- on the answers to all of those -and most encounters don't have the same answers.

Your chances of being hit by a berserker are not higher, but his chance of doing serious damage to you is higher, but his chance of being killed by you is higher.

Does that balance out? Maybe. Maybe not.

Should it? That has to be answered first.

yes, IN PLAY, how likely you are to die is determined by all of those things, and any other conditions of combat. we aren't in play right now we are in design, so the sequence is roughly reversed. In play the end result (like likely hood of death) is determined by various factors (that list), but in design we are deciding what those factors will be, and how they interact, so the place to start is to state what you/we WANT the end result to be. In other words, if by some chance we stumble apon the perfect ruleset to represent the game you have envisioned, what would the chances be.

of course, since those chances will vary in different situations, the overall average, while calculable, might not be particularlly useful, so we'll have to establish odds for various subsets of the play experience. which, in turn, will be much more informative to the end goal.


Some things to think about:
What are some common types of encounters the players will see regularly? (commanding a seige, breaking a seige, organizing a flanking manuver, setting an ambush, dealling with masses of consripted peasants, fighting one enemy Champion)

if players of identical skill and identical characters encounter enemies of similar power level (similar to the other enemy, not to the PCs) what are the mechanical differences if one enemy is a berserker and the other is a coward? (is it viable to convince the coward not to fight at all? are the mechanics such that one ore the other is an indisputably superior fighting style with regards to acheiving the NPCs goals?)

how big a difference do we want there to be in the odds of survival, or the odds of victory, between an skilled/talented player and a mediocore or novice player? (what is the theoretical maximum improvement? how much worse then this theoretical perfection is our assumed average for player skill?)