Arturius

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Grek wrote:It's possible to have tragedy and while also risking your life be mechanically viable.

I would like this to be a game I can play without having to screen the players too extensively. One where the desired results follow naturall from the ruleset.
I would like to echo this comment. Going back (again!) to the idea of who you play with, people game with their friends. As most people don't have homogeneous subgroups of the Borg collective as friends, you need to make games to be a little more widely acceptable than your stated target audience.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two friends in my group that would immediately seek to subvert the ideals of this game. I have a buddy, for example, that loves playing Magnificent Bastard type characters. The sample PC I mentioned earlier is modeled off of a character he played years ago in a D&D game. He'd read your fluff, and the stated purpose of your game, then ignore it and proceed to play however the hell he wanted if the mechanics didn't entice him into the desired behavior. Hell, I would elect to play the character that does all of the dirty, underhanded, back-stabby shit so that the other players could pull off the noble knight routine with an increased chance of success.

Now, as he's a blast to play with, if it came down to excluding him from the game or not playing it, which do you think we'd most often choose? There are always other games we can agree on to play. Designing this game from the standpoint that only the "noblest and purest role-payers" among us can appreciate its unique, beautiful tragedy is going to get it not played.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Now, as he's a blast to play with, if it came down to excluding him from the game or not playing it, which do you think we'd most often choose? There are always other games we can agree on to play. Designing this game from the standpoint that only the "noblest and purest role-payers" among us can appreciate its unique, beautiful tragedy is going to get it not played.
And here I was thinking that being able to say "Here, here's a game that even a Magnificent Bastard loving player would be inspired to be chivalrous by." </sarcasm>

If you're not interested - stick with what you are interested in.

Its that goddamn simple.
I would like to echo this comment. Going back (again!) to the idea of who you play with, people game with their friends. As most people don't have homogeneous subgroups of the Borg collective as friends, you need to make games to be a little more widely acceptable than your stated target audience.
No, I don't. I don't have the slightest interest in selling this or promoting this. I don't intend to convince people to play this on the grounds of: "You guys really should play this, its super special awesome."

If this game is enjoyable for those who enjoy playing heroes and are willing to accept the tragedy and hard won successes, that's the only audience that needs to enjoy it.

Now, it would be good to be able to attract more than a handful of fellow quixotics, but that's a definate second to having it meet the goal of making it suit that.
Last edited by Elennsar on Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Have fun tilting at windmills.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Better to tilt at windmills in search of giants than never to dare to face a giant at all.

No, but seriously.

What is the practical benefit of designing a rpg which has more people playing it when I'm not doing it for money or fame?

Its not like there's a shortage of games that have some form or another of "knights" in them.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

The practical benefit? You'll design a better game.

You're already entrenched in the idea that you don't have to worry about certain mechanical issues or social contracts with the player group because you're writing off any gamer that doesn't fit your mental construct of the "proper" player for this game. You're not solving problems, you're handwaving them away and dismissing anyone that doesn't approach your baby from your point of view as an asshole.

Think of your friends. Can you honestly say that you could get 5 of them together and have them all sit down and play your game in the way you envisioned it? You don't think they're sometimes going to take the expedient, ignoble route with the idea that they'll accomplish greater good because of it? You don't think they're going to get frustrated if they feel cheated by the system or preached at for their supposed heroic failings? You don't think they're going to abandon it if they're not having fun?

Look, I know you're not going to listen to any of this, but at least recognize where you're being obstinate and don't let it trap you into making something shitty and sub-par.
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

Elennsar wrote:What is the practical benefit of designing a rpg which has more people playing it when I'm not doing it for money or fame?
Designing? Please.

At best you are horribly failing at brainstorming. I have yet to see anything remotely resembling any design activity from you. You are closing on two thousands posts and have written no background, no flavor text, no descriptions, no mechanics, no examples, no numbers, NOTHING.
Murtak
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

Elennsar wrote: Because while Arturius is gritty heroism, the appropriate response to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDALH0yR ... re=related (about 7:50) is "Wow. What courage." not "What idiots."
That is definately heroic. And it also worked exactly like I said it should.

The coversation before the charge could be represented with roleplay followed by a check to raise their morale, then a charge which used a check with a strongly positive reputation bonus towards aweing the people about to shoot them into not firing at them. Then the villan makes a check to counter the awed status, forcing his men to fire their guns. They still have a pretty big to-hit malus do to their conflicted feelings of loyalty to their commander and respect for the men they are ordered to shoot. They miss, and the musketeers could walk forwards, making another roll to awe the enemy into not attacking. The troops fail and refuse to attack, but the commander has higher stats and attacks the "Duc". One of the musketeers uses the "Take a Hit for Him" move to protect his son and he dies saving him. He is remembered as a hero while his side goes on to win this 'fight', as the Man in the Iron Mask is later declared king.
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

It doesn't encourage being a hero, it encourages mimicing one.
Well, there's the fact that being morally right is better than being morally wrong perhaps?
The right thing to do is to straight fight. Because there is something shameful and unworthy about being cowardly whether it is -X to anything or not.
Ok, here's the issue - this is a game we're talking about. Let me say this clearly: Playing an RPG does not make you a hero. Choosing to straight fight someone instead of ambushing them in an RPG is not morally right or wrong. The only thing the game can do is let you mimic a hero, because a game that actually encouraged being a hero would say something like - "Rule 1: Stop playing this game and go do something heroic."


And furthermore, I take issue with your claim that "risk makes the hero". No, risk makes the cinematic hero. Accomplishing heroic things makes an actual hero. If you're holding a tranquilizer gun, and you see a bear heading toward some kids, which is more heroic?
A) Shoot the bear with the tranquilizer gun, while it's still too far away to attack anybody.
B) Drop the gun, run up and punch the bear in the face.

If your answer is "B", then congratulations, you are a dumbass. The only thing you can say about "B" is that it looks cooler. And if the goal of the game is to look cool, then the rules would be better off representing cinematic reality than gritty reality.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

The practical benefit? You'll design a better game.
More popular =/= better.
You're already entrenched in the idea that you don't have to worry about certain mechanical issues or social contracts with the player group because you're writing off any gamer that doesn't fit your mental construct of the "proper" player for this game. You're not solving problems, you're handwaving them away and dismissing anyone that doesn't approach your baby from your point of view as an asshole.
No, I am saying that if you don't care for this, don't play it, and if you do play it with the intent of gaming it for all it is worth because I didn't set it up so that you get huge bonuses for the intended style of play and/or penalties for diverting from it, fuck off. If you want to play a game about the things this game is about, play it. If you want to screw the story and abuse the mechanics, then play something else.
Think of your friends. Can you honestly say that you could get 5 of them together and have them all sit down and play your game in the way you envisioned it? You don't think they're sometimes going to take the expedient, ignoble route with the idea that they'll accomplish greater good because of it? You don't think they're going to get frustrated if they feel cheated by the system or preached at for their supposed heroic failings? You don't think they're going to abandon it if they're not having fun?
I can honestly say that I could probably find people who could play this as desired. I can honestly say that people who find it a turn off are welcome to play something else.
Look, I know you're not going to listen to any of this, but at least recognize where you're being obstinate and don't let it trap you into making something shitty and sub-par.
There is nothing shitty or sub-par about making a game that has a limited audience. There is a lot shitty and sub-par about sacrificing design intent to make a game that is totally unlike what is desired to get more people to play it.
Designing? Please.

At best you are horribly failing at brainstorming. I have yet to see anything remotely resembling any design activity from you. You are closing on two thousands posts and have written no background, no flavor text, no descriptions, no mechanics, no examples, no numbers, NOTHING.
At best you are demonstrating exactly why I don't care two shits for what the average Denner thinks of this game, because we have different ideas on what should be done.

At worst, you're going out of your way to badger and pester and mock and otherwise frustrate rather than either ignore (and focus on the games you find fun) or help.
Grek wrote: That is definately heroic. And it also worked exactly like I said it should.
Some of the time, things should work like that. Some of the time, no.

Being able to count on enemies missing in situations like that robs them of the courage being displayed and turns into a weird (kind of cool, though - beats any D&D social skills) set of opposing Charisma-based checks.
Ok, here's the issue - this is a game we're talking about. Let me say this clearly: Playing an RPG does not make you a hero. Choosing to straight fight someone instead of ambushing them in an RPG is not morally right or wrong. The only thing the game can do is let you mimic a hero, because a game that actually encouraged being a hero would say something like - "Rule 1: Stop playing this game and go do something heroic."
The characters can and should be heroic (if they're supposed to be heroes). The characters, whose morality is the one in question here (unless somehow the player's alignment changes for playing someone who is a filthy sadist, which would be extremely bizzare), are the ones whose straight fighting is morally right or not.
And furthermore, I take issue with your claim that "risk makes the hero". No, risk makes the cinematic hero. Accomplishing heroic things makes an actual hero.
This is a hero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

This was heroic and risky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Washi ... laware.png

That is also, by something other than coincidence, the kind of thing that I would like to see happen - and no, I'm not refering to crossing a half frozen river in and of itself.

The goal of the game is to represent grittiness and heroism.

No, that's not a contradiction in terms.
Last edited by Elennsar on Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

Some of the time, things should work like that. Some of the time, no.

Being able to count on enemies missing in situations like that robs them of the courage being displayed and turns into a weird (kind of cool, though - beats any D&D social skills) set of opposing Charisma-based checks.
Obviously, barring extreme circumstances, you'll not be able to convince each and every enemy not to fire. That scene was cenematic and had alot of special cases in it to boot.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Even convincing more than a couple should be something of an accomplishment (as in, difficult).

That scene as a go-for-broke spend-all-your-hero-points or whatever would be fine - but being able to do that regularly would not.

They genuinely thought they were going to die. Or at least get hit.

I don't think that was purely being pessimists.

Regardless, back to Arturius.

Some times heroism will make a difference. Some times not.

More to the point: If "leading from the front" and whatever are part of the way things are done, some level of that has to be assumed as part of your base Leadership check.

How much?
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
IGTN
Knight-Baron
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:13 am

Post by IGTN »

Elennsar wrote:More to the point: If "leading from the front" and whatever are part of the way things are done, some level of that has to be assumed as part of your base Leadership check.

How much?
None of it. It's unheroic to do something purely to avoid game-mechanical penalties.
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

If you have something useful to say, I'd love to hear it.

If you intend to mock my definition of heroism, fuck off and be ignored.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

I'd also say none of it, but for a completely different reason.

Base leadership would be stuff like speeches to raise morale, embolden your troops or inspire them to get the fortifacations around the village you're defending built quicker. You make a leadership check and that's the results.

Then you have things like "Don't ambush, don't kill prisoners, don't pillage." This doesn't require a roll at all. You choose to do good and you get a reputation for being a good guy, like "Lord Enfof the Brave", or you do bad things anyway and people start loathing you because you're now "Lord Eric the Butcher" or "Alsof the Cowardly".

Last, you have stuff like leading heroic charges, taking a blow for someone, and other stuff that requires both a leadership check and a check to see how well you preform the actual act of charging that barbarian or blocking that blow. Results are based on both checks.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Makes sense.

I would say this.

Directly, being Sir Chivalry is more dangerous than being Lord Dreadly and less profitable.

Others may (or may not) be inspired to help Sir Chivalry or hinder Lord Dreadly.

In other words, you can't say "I'm Sir Chivalry." and bam people follow you to hell.

No, being Sir Chivalry means you're the kind of man who -can- get others following him to hell.

I'm not sure if this is in dispute at all, but I do want to emphasis it - your heroic deeds are not certain to pay off when you want them to.

But when the chips are down, I can say pretty confidently that Sir Chivalry has an advatnage here.

The fact Lord Dreadly is less likely (or so he thinks) to be caught in that mess is -his- advantage.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

I've a question.

Would it make any difference to have an outline of a map now, or not?

Because I'm not sure whether I want this to be an island or not (and would appreciate thoughts), and drawing a map is a good way to see how things look, more or less.

I don't want to do it at this point if it won't do anything but demonstrate I can't draw, however.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Parthenon
Knight-Baron
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

Post by Parthenon »

Elennsar wrote: Would it make any difference to have an outline of a map now, or not?
Not really. Until we've worked out how far apart battles are, how much travelling is going to take place, how large battlefields are, how much choice the players have over the place of battlefield, how much the DM can change the map and so on, then drawing a map is silly because in all likelihood it would need to be completely changed several times over.

Which makes me think. Based on this and various other things you've said (unfortunately none of which I can recall offhand) this project seems more like a single campaign than a RPG that can be applied to other situations.

After all, you've got a specific NPC, obviously specific cultures, geography and so on, with a narrow field of what the PCs are going to do, and most of the story planned out. That does seem more like a single campaign than a system to me.

Oh, and an island sounds good. Or at least a peninsula.

So, are you going for the idea that heroic characters and bastardy characters are equal but different?

That bastardy characters will use ambushes, dirty tactics and so on, will have less chance of death but won't be able to trust their underlings and will have a harder time in straight up battle because their side is less likely to fight to the death? And players will be discouraged from playing this sort of character by the players agreeing not to beforehand?

That heroic characters will take risks to help others and keep their troops alive, will have battles to try to save villages surrounded by ravagers, will be supported when they need it most but will have a much higher risk of death? And players will be encouraged to play this sort of character by the players agreeing to beforehand?

If so, then I see two main problems. Firstly since you don't want backstory to have too much effect on the game, the heroic players are a lot more likely to die or be captured. If so, then the player will need a new character, even if it is just while their normal one is being rescued. During this time, they gain no benefits from the heroic deeds, and indeed the army might be demoralised whilst the hero is missing. Since you want the player to care about the new PC, this could end up with the player having two PCs to play. This would punish the player for performing heroic acts, which is adverse conditioning teaching the player not to be heroic.

Secondly, since there will be multiple people playing, some of them could play heroic characters and some could play bastardy characters, and the group as a whole is better off. This is like when a player really wants to play a Paladin in D&D, but one or two of the rest of the party want to do something naughty so for the good of the game the Paladin PC acts like a retard for a while.

It can be viewed that the only reason people do good for rewards. Whether it is for rewards that they think they will get after they die, for karmic rewards, for other peoples praise, for thinking more of themselves than otherwise, because doing the right thing also has side benefits, or what.

There are fewer reasons for players to make PCs do the right thing.

One of the main reasons for players to play heroic characters is to feel good about themselves. This could be because they admire themselves for doing so, because the rest of the players congratulate and encourage doing so, because they get endorphins from winning or doing something cool.

The only one of these three you have any control over is the third. And to do that you need to make being heroic different in the game, better in some way and capable of giving that winning rush of endorphins. At the moment it doesn't, and actively trains the player not to do good. So, to counteract the teaching the player not to do good, you only really have the rest of the group who will all also be trained not to do good.

This is going to lead the whole group to feel worse about doing good. In effect, you are training players to not do good. You could even say that you are training evil-doers and as such must be stopped.

Oh shit, I started babbling and I don't know how much to delete. Oh well, I'll just shove the whole thing on the board.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Not really. Until we've worked out how far apart battles are, how much travelling is going to take place, how large battlefields are, how much choice the players have over the place of battlefield, how much the DM can change the map and so on, then drawing a map is silly because in all likelihood it would need to be completely changed several times over.
I meant a map of the kingdom, so that might have some purpose even with that.

Points taken, though.
Which makes me think. Based on this and various other things you've said (unfortunately none of which I can recall offhand) this project seems more like a single campaign than a RPG that can be applied to other situations.
Yeah - I'd like to set things up so that you -can- tell other stories than this one, but this is the one I'm focusing on.
If so, then I see two main problems. Firstly since you don't want backstory to have too much effect on the game, the heroic players are a lot more likely to die or be captured. If so, then the player will need a new character, even if it is just while their normal one is being rescued. During this time, they gain no benefits from the heroic deeds, and indeed the army might be demoralised whilst the hero is missing. Since you want the player to care about the new PC, this could end up with the player having two PCs to play. This would punish the player for performing heroic acts, which is adverse conditioning teaching the player not to be heroic.
The army might also be inspired to avenge their lost leader - as for the player having two PCs, pick one and stick to him/her/it (when it becomes "which one").
Secondly, since there will be multiple people playing, some of them could play heroic characters and some could play bastardy characters, and the group as a whole is better off. This is like when a player really wants to play a Paladin in D&D, but one or two of the rest of the party want to do something naughty so for the good of the game the Paladin PC acts like a retard for a while.
The group as a whole is better off because being morally dubious is perfectly okay unless the paladin starts smiting teammates, which is a bigger problem somehow than the teammates being morally wrong.

Nevermind whether or not doing something morally wrong or dubious is -in and of itself- a bad act, even if it "assists" in doing a good act.
The only one of these three you have any control over is the third. And to do that you need to make being heroic different in the game, better in some way and capable of giving that winning rush of endorphins. At the moment it doesn't, and actively trains the player not to do good. So, to counteract the teaching the player not to do good, you only really have the rest of the group who will all also be trained not to do good.

This is going to lead the whole group to feel worse about doing good. In effect, you are training players to not do good. You could even say that you are training evil-doers and as such must be stopped.
And if you actually care about playing a hero, then play a goddamn hero. If not, don't.

Rewarding people for doing good -doesn't- encourage people to be heroic and do good things because it is the right thing to do, it further strengthens the mindset that actions must be rewarded to be worth doing.
Oh shit, I started babbling and I don't know how much to delete. Oh well, I'll just shove the whole thing on the board.
Anything after "babbling." : )


The babbling is fine though. What I mind is that I do not want to make a game where you do heroic things because you want to win more and get I won stuff (endorphins and/or praise). If you want to play a hero because you feel playing heroes is fun, I intend to work with that.

If that's not enough, then maybe this is a bad game for you, because "hey I (my character) accomplished something." isn't enough.

As for Lord Dreadly and Sir Chivalry, I would honestly like to make it so that the PCs are heroes - or at least, trying to be, and playing Lord Dreadly is not even an option.

And since this (Arturius in particular, not the setting and system in general) are meant to be about heroes, that might actually be viable - if you want to play Lord Dreadly, fine - but this is not the campaign for it.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Parthenon
Knight-Baron
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

Post by Parthenon »

Elennsar wrote: And if you actually care about playing a hero, then play a goddamn hero. If not, don't.

Rewarding people for doing good -doesn't- encourage people to be heroic and do good things because it is the right thing to do, it further strengthens the mindset that actions must be rewarded to be worth doing.

What I mind is that I do not want to make a game where you do heroic things because you want to win more and get I won stuff (endorphins and/or praise). If you want to play a hero because you feel playing heroes is fun, I intend to work with that.
Thats not what I was talking about. I see where I went off on a tangent, but my main point was that the players shouldn't be punished for doing heroic actions. At this point I don't really give a flying fuck about the reward. By removing their character, even for a battle or two, it is a penalty. If you are more likely to be penalised for doing something then you are less likely to do it.

Punishing people for doing good -doesn't- encourage people to be heroic and do good things, it further strengthens the mindset that cowardice is safer and works better.

The players will (hopefully) want to go into the game wanting to be heroes and doing heroic stuff. But if they are punished for doing so then it is bad. It doesn't need rewarding- the other players and your own beliefs should do that enough, but if they are punished then that can override the positive reinforcement from the other players.
Last edited by Parthenon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

The players will (hopefully) want to go into the game wanting to be heroes and doing heroic stuff. But if they are punished for doing so then it is bad. It doesn't need rewarding- the other players and your own beliefs should do that enough, but if they are punished then that can override the positive reinforcement from the other players.
And if losing a character is being "punished" when you're doing something that is dangerous, then your idea of punishment is essentially set up so that you CANNOT accept a (big?) loss, is it not?

That's my problem. For the Emperor's sake, what is an acceptable sacrifice at this point? Being mildly inconvenienced for a portion of a battle?

Let's just get that out of the way here and now. Arturius is about gritty heroism with elements of (though not exclusively focused on) tragedy. Bad things -do- happen to good people, and that includes the PCs.

So. What's a problem you're willing to have your PC endure that -is- a problem?

Momentary difficulty in and of itself isn't much of a sacrifice....even a huge difficulty.

So. I'm listening...what is "punishing" a PC here? Because if the entire concept that bad things can happen to good people, including PCs, and since heroes end up in dangerous places more bad things happen as a consequence means that being a hero is being "punished", there's no way to avoid that without making heroes inexplicably resistant/immune to bad things.
Last edited by Elennsar on Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Parthenon
Knight-Baron
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

Post by Parthenon »

Okay, your right, based on your things you really really want I wasn't being at all productive. Sorry about that. I meant more punishing the PC in non-obvious ways such as making them and the DM spend time sorting out back-up characters, splitting their focus onto a secondary character and so on- extra effort which may not be necessary depending on how you make the rules. The comment was meant to suggest areas in which it could be improved rather than convince you to change things you are happy with.

Of course, you might not think that this is a problem, but in my and others experience making a new character can take hours or up to days if you are min-maxing, which is irritating in the middle of a session.

But, it can lead to a reasonable point:

With the players encouraged to take risks and be heroic, it is more likely that a PC is unavailable for a period, whether captured, injured or what. Nothing inherently wrong with that. So, you need to know how to deal with this: do you have a back-up character already made? If so is it the same level as the normal one? Or do you make a new PC specifically for the period until you get the old PC back? If so how fast is it to make? Can backup characters be made simpler than the normal ones.

This was the sort of constructive criticism I wanted to make.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Okay, your right, based on your things you really really want I wasn't being at all productive. Sorry about that. I meant more punishing the PC in non-obvious ways such as making them and the DM spend time sorting out back-up characters, splitting their focus onto a secondary character and so on- extra effort which may not be necessary depending on how you make the rules.
::chuckles.:: That could have been clearer - no offence. I thought you were refering to the obvious ways. Yeah, the non-obvious ways need to be dealt with - same with any other non-obvious effects, comments on that bit below. Thanks for clarifying - I want -characters- making real sacrifices, but the less -players- are, the better.
With the players encouraged to take risks and be heroic, it is more likely that a PC is unavailable for a period, whether captured, injured or what. Nothing inherently wrong with that. So, you need to know how to deal with this: do you have a back-up character already made? If so is it the same level as the normal one? Or do you make a new PC specifically for the period until you get the old PC back? If so how fast is it to make? Can backup characters be made simpler than the normal ones.

This was the sort of constructive criticism I wanted to make.
In that case - and in regards to the "same level" - I point you to saying that I think its probably a good thing to be able to play a formerly NPC Companion if your old character is out of it - since there are 80+ of them and only 4-6 PCs.

Yes, character generation does take a fair amount of time - particularly if you're going to a great deal of trouble.

As for backups being simpler: Personally, I'd like to have a "standard" Companion written up with all the basic we-take-it-for-granted and various things you can tweak. If you want to make a customized character, go for it. If you just want a quick back up, taking this and adding a certain amount based on experience (which should be fairly low - Arturius is about advancement of character -goals-, not -skills-.) would be perfectly doable if you don't have the time or desire for a custom build.

However, I can't really write one until I sort out the system details and character building, so you're going to have to wait if you want to see something.

Any comments or suggestions on the parts that don't involve incapaciated/unavailable (temporally or otherwise) PCs? Most of the time, you should be able to have your (original) PC with you - though things can go against you in that regard, you ought to be able to work with that as a relatively safe assumption.

Note: One reason I'm generating relatively little is that Arturius is not a particularly high priority project for me - posting it at all is a response to "Okay, what -do- you want a campaign to be like." and thinking that I would, in fact, like to do this - but I'm also doing various entirely unrelated things that are taking up my time. None urgent - just that drawing a Civ II unit (picture) based on Elendil is time not spent thinking of how much if any magic I want floating around in Arturius.
Last edited by Elennsar on Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

Having it so that 1/2 of the players run the barbarian side of things and 1/2 of the players run the knights side of things would make for a pretty fun variation. Other possible variations include:

Three Musketeers mode: The players do not get an army. The enemy does. Players start with strong positive reputation
Crusades mode: They players are the ones invading and trying to hunt down the team's "Duc".
Quixote mode: Heroism gives attribute bonuses and you joust windmill-dragons.
General Washington mode: American revolution. People have muskets and no armor. Duc=Congress
Some Connecticut Yankees in Duc Arturius's Court: You have guns, nobody else does. Everyone thinks you are wizards.
Last edited by Grek on Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Elennsar
Duke
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:41 am
Location: Terra

Post by Elennsar »

Three Musketeers mode: The players do not get an army. The enemy does. Players start with strong positive reputation
That one is pretty close to the starting assumption. The only reason you have an army is that the King is taking advantage of you being among the best people he has and directing you to places where that involves Leadership and Tactics as much as Armed Combat: Swords and Horsemanship.

You don't have much of a positive reputation until you -do- something - and I'm not entirely sure how much of "having done something" is legitimate to put in the backstory.

At some point, someone ought to try the last two - but I'm not sure how well that would work. Would love to hear about it after doing this though.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

Elennsar wrote:That one is pretty close to the starting assumption. The only reason you have an army is that the King is taking advantage of you being among the best people he has and directing you to places where that involves Leadership and Tactics as much as Armed Combat: Swords and Horsemanship.

You don't have much of a positive reputation until you -do- something - and I'm not entirely sure how much of "having done something" is legitimate to put in the backstory.
For the Arturius base campaign, the players do get to lead an army (the Duc's army) and do not start out with a base reputation.
At some point, someone ought to try the last two - but I'm not sure how well that would work. Would love to hear about it after doing this though.
Shouldn't be all that hard. Same basic mechanics, just lower armor values and raise attack values on the ranged weapons. Which reminds me, I should puzzle out some mechanics for archers and throwing axes into people's faces.
Post Reply