Arturius

[Elennsar]

This thread is intended to continue this thread http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49371 as an actual project.
Those who do not care for the ideas expressed within, please stay out.

Those who can number crunch confidently and who are interested in this, here's my request:

There are three basic statements here.

1) You are actually facing a chance of character death. There a variety of more or less reliable ways of dealing with it, but character death -is- a possible outcome, up to and including TPK (though to the fullest extent possible, I would like to avoid it, subject to the other two goals).

2) Characters cannot be bold if there is nothing to fear. Being fearless in the face of a rabbit is meaningless. Being fearless in the face of a lion may save or cost your life, but it takes actual "willingness to face the chance of dying" to fight the lion.

3) If you are fighting an equally skilled opponent, he should be as able to kill YOU as you are to kill HIM. If you can spend a hero point to save your life, he should be able to do so as well. If he can have his head cut off in one hit, he should be able to do the same to you.


What is NOT a goal is having the PCs be vulnerable or weak.

Ideally (f all goes well) everyone (of the PCs) survives. But one of the things you have to struggle with in this setting (inspired by, but not based on, Dux Arturius, hence the name) is that counting on things going well is the mark of blind (over)confidence.

However, this applies to the other guy, too. Your job as one of the Companions is to make things go badly for HIM and avoid the things that can go badly for YOU.

It is meant to be a struggle. It is meant to include tragedy and it is meant to ensure by whatever means necessary within the system that PCs can lose and very badly.

Balancing that with "and the PCs can win and triumph" is why I'm posting this here.

I don't particularly care whether PCs rely more on shield blocks than armor boosted soak rolls, other than as for how it works out - you're going to have both in play, after all, so the overall result needs to be able to allow for PC survival - including by spending every hero point they get (but not mandating that) and accepting grevious injury short of death that may (again, life -doesn't- go smooth) make things worse in the long run, but at least you HAVE a long run.

So. What to do about that?[/i]

[Grek]

Would you be OK with a system in which, if the PCs loose a fight and are unable to flee due to their wounds, they get captured and either rescued by the rest of the PCs, ransomed back to their side or publically executed?

And do you expect the PCs to be rallying troops/leading troops at all?

[Elennsar]

Would you be OK with a system in which, if the PCs loose a fight and are unable to flee due to their wounds, they get captured and either rescued by the rest of the PCs, ransomed back to their side or publically executed?

And do you expect the PCs to be rallying troops/leading troops at all?

I am lukewarm on ransoms, but yes, I'm fine with capture existing (though keep in mind that there's a certain chance someone will "finish you off", most of what you have to worry about has passed).

Also, there are plenty of NPCs that may be able to rescue you (you're -among- the Companions, not the only ones), so dealing with that will be at least as important as dealing with rescuing them.

The idea that having a "N" before "PC" translates into anything in and of itself has no place here.

And yes, I do. Leading/rallying troops is definately important, but I'm not sure whether that's regular or just a big deal -when- it occurs - going to have to sort out that as I sort out what exactly the Companions (in general) do. But it will come up.

However, one thing I want to note.

I don't want to work on the mechanics until I've sorted out the fluff a bit more.

So I'd appreciate a bit of discussion in that regard - if I know what the fluff is, I can figure out what mechanically I want that to translate as much more easily.

No point figuring out "Should there be rules for 'getting your sea legs'?" (My inclination to that one is yes, for the record) before knowing if being familiar with the sea will mean anything.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Is there going to be fluff support for rapidly bringing replacement characters into play?

[Elennsar]

Define rapidly. (IC time? Sometimes.)

But yes, if you die as Bob, there's another...not sure how many, actually - but other Companions, yes.

And playing another (formerly a NPC by default and not given much definition) is fine.

After all, fluffwise, you're a member of a larger group than "the PCs".

How much larger, as stated, I'm not sure (for the group total eighty at least, I think, counting the PCs).

[Grek]

That makes the chance that the players will finish the game go up quite a bit.

Another request: Fill out something like Frank's Design Flowchart. A sample group with 6 of the Companions, then divide that group into two three man parties, design a sample skirmish and a sample battle.

[Elennsar]

A request for YOU.

If you want to help with this, help with making stuff.

I've had my "asking questions and expecting me to come up with answers with no actual assistance" quota exhausted.

If you want to be helpful, then help think of what kind of roles there would be.

[Grek]

Ok. Here's 6 people who I think could be Companions.

Murg the Mighty - Focuses on wrestling and close quarters, unarmed combat. Wears chain armour, though. Can lift lesser men over his head and throw them. Rumored to have once wrestled a bear. Does not like horses very much.

Lord Eric - Comes from a family that was friendly with the Romans. Cultured, and a very good public speaker. Inspires troops and leads them extremely well. Good in a fight too, perfering a long sword.

Aflop the Hunter - Likes to hunt, very good bowman and horse rider. Jousted a bit and is good with a lance. Not as skilled in direct melee combat as some, but better than the average bear.

Thun the Brave - Very brave, charges into battle on his horse swinging is sword and chopping off heads. On foot, he'll get up close to the enemy and stab them in the face directly, rather than use complicated swordplay.

Mand the Sailor - Used to be a merchant, but then he was attacked by pirates. He fought them off, though. When he reported the pirates to Arturius, the Duc was so impressed that he invited Mand to join the companions. Has a boat and knows how to use it. Not good with horses.

Rithul the Saxon - A former Saxon who defected to Arturius after loosing a battle. Begged to serve under him rather than be killed. Has a tragic backstory and is distrusted by most. A very very skilled commander and fighter, though, and loyal to Arturius.

[Elennsar]

I don't mean this to nitpick (they're interesting ideas), but here's some reactions:

Murg suffers from the fact unarmed combat really isn't a very good idea - it has its uses, but specializing it isn't a good idea.

Aflop (Please tell me this isn't a bad pun) from the modest role of archery in this.

Rithul: Hmmmm. Hmmmmm indeed.

One thing I'd like to note that I would like to emphasis a big part of what makes one Companion different than another, or at least the memorable ones - personality.

The idea of having people stand out because everyone to has a Unique Skill is hard to work into this, because there are only so many major skills.

[Elennsar]

For those reading

with an interest in helping

, some things I'd like to discuss and sort out.

1) How big a deal exactly are ships? Its one thing if ships are "good to have someone along who is familiar with" - but they're basically transport, and its another thing entirely if naval battles (which are really boarding battles, but nonetheless) are part of the stuff to be dealt with.

2) What exactly are we dealing with in the barbarians?

There's a range anywhere from land craving semi-civilized enemies, who you mainly have to convince that while they may be welcome to settle and become subjects of the King, if they want to invade, they're getting just enough land to bury them to wanton and evil savages.

It is also possible that there are multiple types - some might well be ones you can get something from diplomacy from (I don't want to eliminate diplomacy, but nor do I want it to make the fact this is about a war turn into being primarily about making deals and treaties...)

3) This is inspired by the historical Arthur, if there was one, and King Alfred of Wessex.

I have, however, been seriously weighing bringing my thoughts on having a setting about heroes - bold and noble - vs. some pretty horrible horrors into this, and I am not sure how well it works.

Undead and such. The main thing is - and this is true whether that exists or not - is that there should be a clear contrast between being true and honorable and "good" so to speak and what you are fighting.

That is definately one element I want - I don't want to have it essentially boil down to one group of take-what-we-can-by-force vs. another such group, but all it is is natives (PCs) vs. foreigners - that's not interesting and doesn't make for it really meaning much for one group to triumph.

Naturally, all of these need much more discussion to be ready to work into descriptions and fluffy passages, nevermind hard rules, but they're the thoughts at present.

What to do, what to do indeed.

[norms29]

1. I think it would add a lot to the setting to have more then one group of barbarians. looking back to the suspected historical inspiration for the arthurian legends, you have both the saxon invaders and the Picts from scottland; so maybe one set of barbarians (based on the Picts) has been around for a while, they and the Dux's people have some shared history which makes them potential allies against the newcomers. There is also precedent for this on the Alfred the Great side of things, with his early military experiences being fighting vikings which were invading a neighboring kingdom (which really couldn't be described as barbarians, but whatever.)

2.there is one piece of the Arthurian history I think might have to be left out depending on how clear a contrast you want between the "good guys" and "bad guys", namely, that the Anglo-saxons originally came to Britain as mercenaries fighting for the Bretons. if we retain that particular peice then we have a problem, both from the fact that "You brought this on yourselves" and just guilt by association. after all, the worse the invaders, the worse the player's people are for having hired them.

3. I think that naval combat, especially of a boarding action variety, would be great. it fits well with king Alfred as an inppiration, and Smaller unit size then land battles justifies the player's involvment mattering without them being Over The Top, godzilla-esque one-man-armies.

[Psychic Robot]

1) You are actually facing a chance of character death. There a variety of more or less reliable ways of dealing with it, but character death -is- a possible outcome, up to and including TPK (though to the fullest extent possible, I would like to avoid it, subject to the other two goals).

2) Characters cannot be bold if there is nothing to fear. Being fearless in the face of a rabbit is meaningless. Being fearless in the face of a lion may save or cost your life, but it takes actual "willingness to face the chance of dying" to fight the lion.

3) If you are fighting an equally skilled opponent, he should be as able to kill YOU as you are to kill HIM. If you can spend a hero point to save your life, he should be able to do so as well. If he can have his head cut off in one hit, he should be able to do the same to you.

What is NOT a goal is having the PCs be vulnerable or weak.

The only way that I can see this happening is if you emphasize non-combat solutions and pit the PCs against NPCs of a much lower level/power. I'm not sure how the PCs being vulnerable and weak will affect this--they can be demigods, but if their opponents are other demigods or real gods, then they're strong but likely to die.

[Elennsar]

2.there is one piece of the Arthurian history I think might have to be left out depending on how clear a contrast you want between the "good guys" and "bad guys", namely, that the Anglo-saxons originally came to Britain as mercenaries fighting for the Bretons. if we retain that particular peice then we have a problem, both from the fact that "You brought this on yourselves" and just guilt by association. after all, the worse the invaders, the worse the player's people are for having hired them.

I'm not particularly fond of it - if the Saxons are meant to be Evil Ravagers, then hiring them as mercenaries was purely an act of stupidity.

Wouldn't mind if some other king of dubious morality and sense hired a pack of barbarians of that ilk for what he thought was a good thing, and they would up destroying his kingdom and overthrowing/killing him, and now we have to face them (we=the kingdom the PCs are dealing with), though, which is a thought.

The only way that I can see this happening is if you emphasize non-combat solutions and pit the PCs against NPCs of a much lower level/power. I'm not sure how the PCs being vulnerable and weak will affect this--they can be demigods, but if their opponents are other demigods or real gods, then they're strong but likely to die.

Not necessarily. Just because he -can- spend a hero point doesn't mean he has one when he needs one.

The point is, if you fight a chieftain's guards, and they all have Above Average skill, whatever that is numerically, and you also do - then you should be facing an even fight. May the best man win.

If you can spend a hero point to save your life, it should be an option he has provided he hasn't spent his hero points already, too. Etc.

You should treat your "equals" as people who can kill you - but "can" doesn't mean 'will".

If I block an attack from a chieftain's guard then I might be able to get an opening - the fact he could get the same doesn't mean that he will.

If fighting your equal could be summed up as a coin flip, chess and checkers and so on would be a lot less interesting.

Most opponents, however, aren't the equals (one on one) to the PCs - but you're generally outnumbered, so it should roughly even out as a fair challenge.

Being able to win and survive is good. Being able to treat the forty odd battles and skirmishes noted as of consequence as something where you cannot die - not good.

Balancing things to make it entirely possible but difficult enough to make it a real peril and not just pure illusion is not going to be easy.

[Psychic Robot]

Have you considered just running WoD?

[Elennsar]

I don't like the World of Darkness - it has some elements I've found interesting, but not enough to put up with the ones I dislike.

[violence in the media]

How do you propose to fairly determine if an NPC has spent his Hero point prior to crossing swords with a PC?

Will NPCs have the same number of Hero points as PCs have?

[Elennsar]

Keep in mind that there's plenty of things in combat to spend them on - they're not available for routine checks (their purpose is to mitigate bad dice rolls and represent how extraordinary people can do truly extraordinary things), so by default, a NPC can be assumed to have his.

As for the number? I'm not sure. I do know that anyone who is competent enough to pose a serious threat to you sword to sword gets at least some - rank and filers don't (there are places I'd like to represent how the ordinary guy can do miracles, this isn't one of them to begin with).

One thing I am assuming as an ironclad assumption - the GM is not going to be a dick on purpose.

If he is, there is a problem that I can't fix - but the players can.

But I'm not certain enough on hero point allotment to PCs to be sure how to handle it for NPCs. I'll get back to you when that's sorted out, so for the time being, assume that NPCs who are equal otherwise are equal here too.

[Elennsar]

So the question seems to be - hero points.

I like the suggestion (my memory is failing me and I cannot recall who made it) that characters start (the game) with a larger pool than they'll end up with for the final battles.

But the question is, how many more? What exactly should they be available for?

Currently, my mechanical idea for their use is this:

You may spend them during your turn or someone else's.

You may adjust a roll (by you) by one level of success (there are three levels of failure and three of sucesss - critical, complete, marginal) for one point. You may adjust it by two for three points.

You always have at least one in any major encounter (if it can kill you, you have 1 hero point in that encounter, even if you would otherwise be at 0)

Beyond that, I'm not sure.

Comments on uses? Remember, TNs are written based on the idea that you don't spend one, so far as "how hard this is" - you won't have enough to use them most of the time even if they're available to be spent for most tasks.

First priority, however, is figuring out what you can do.

[Grek]

Not too sure if hero points are even needed. With 80 knights and about 5 players, that's about 16 knights dead per player before the campaign has to end because everyone important on your side is dead. If we go with 12 major battles and about 24 lesser fights, that's 36 fights. They players would have to get 2 or more knights killed every combat on average to have all of the Companions be dead.

With that said, I will recomend a very basic Companion generating ruleset:

Step One: Pick a name.

Step Two: Get attributes. Companions get 14 points worth of these to the average troop's 10. You have to have a minimum of 1 in each stat. Raising a stat costs 1 point per 1 point of stat. There are four stats, Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom and Fortitude. Higher is better.

Step Three: Skills. I don't know what skills we want. Likely one for each weapon/armour, one for riding, one for sailing, one or two for tactics, and some other ones I'm not quite sure about. Each skill has an attribute. You buy skills just like attributes, but you get alot more points and you're expected to have larger values all around for skills.

Step Four: Traits. Works just like Warp Cult, except you only pick 7 points of positive traits. Stuff like Owns A Boat, Trained Cavalry and Noble Birth. I somehow doubt we want a Companion with the Coward, Lazy and Hears Voices traits.

And a basic rolling scheme:

Step one: Roll the relevent skill worth of d6s.
Step two: Pick that skill's attribute worth of d6s to keep.
Step three: Add these up. Compare to target number. If your number is better, you win.

[Elennsar]

I have one word for that: "Bleh."

Just because characters can die does not mean that I want them to be dying right and left and the game designed so that character death is meaningless.

[Grek]

Edit: Did not see last line.

The assumption is that the players will not run through 2 knights per fight. Just that if they somehow sucked at the game that badly, they could.

[Elennsar]

Right - but the idea of designing the system so that if they are that inept it doesn't matter is "Bleh" worthy.

I like detailed characters, and I like a risk of actual character death - the two are not mutually exclusive for me.

[Grek]

Well, we could reduce the number of Companions or raise the number of fights.

[Elennsar]

Or deal with the Companions as individuals as intended.

The PCs are individual Companions - which ones may change when one dies, but otherwise not.

Sometimes, all the Companions will be together (or most of them), and we need rules to handle that.

Sometimes, we'll be dealing with a few of them detached to lend a professional presence and take care of things...the default assumption is that this is more common, though not necessarily by much. Certainly more common to have "less than all" than "all".

So why do we need more fights or less Companions?

[Grek]

If we allow the players to get a new character when the a current one dies, they will do exactly that. And with 36 battles and 80 charecters, the players will be able to have two knights die per battle and still win the game. If we don't want that to happen, we need to create rules to prevent it.