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.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.