Suggestion de changements de reglement

Suite au poste de Marie-Helène qui a demandé pour un session de chialage, je me suis mit à penser qu'est ce que j'aimerais changer. Mais la majorité de mes idées avait rapport au règlement, donc j'ai répondue ici à la place du poste original. Mes commentaires sont en anglais parce que c'était plus vite pour moi de les écrire en anglais. J'ai essayé de mettre mon raisonement pour chacune des suggestions.

... et c'est long... j'ai du diviser en trois postes!


GENERIC COMMENT ON RULES

There are numerous errors and mistakes within the rules. For example Point de Corps I is level I in the description, and level II in the table. Which is correct? Mana I has Nature I or Religion I as a possible prerequisite, yet neither of those skills actually exist. I know several of these have been pointed out a few times, but they were never corrected.

Such mistakes should be fixed upon being noticed, and a new set of rules released (v1.1, v1.2, v1.3, etc.). It certainly doesn’t help to bring in new players when they read the rules and can’t make sense of them.

Granted, I know “fixing the rules” takes time, but many of these were pointed out on the babillard, and if there is time to write down the rule change on the babbilard, then there’s just as much time to change it in the main document. (Ben, if you need help with that, let me know; I’d be happy to provide assistance there.)


CLASSSES AND CLASS-BASED SKILL LISTS

As such, the classes are well defined and I have no suggested changes for them.

I do question the need for them, however. I understand that the concept of classes is essentially for “niche protection;” that is, different people will have different skills which they will take in consequence of their class. The skills are priced according to your class to re-enforce this niche protection. This allows people to make sure that not everyone can do what they do and thus they feel needed, and also encourages people to form up into parties with people with different skills.

But is it really necessary? Everyone has a limited number of points, and no one can buy everything. Isn’t that enough of a niche protection?

Removing classes would imply that all skills cost the same. A level 1 skill is therefore 1 point for everyone, irrespective of the skill or the class of the person. I can absolutely see some people buying skills they haven’t before because it was too expensive for their class… more people are likely to get healing skills or stealth skills, for example. But that is actually logical for adventurers; real adventurers – whether by choice or forced into the situation – eventually learn skills for traveling and survival, stealth, first aid, and combat skills. Any real adventurer without such skills would most likely die. That’s the nature of the job of being an adventurer. Yes, some will be better than others at certain things, but that should be represented by purchasing higher levels of skills (levels II and III), not by making some skills cost more than others. And some people forced into adventuring don’t learn those skills and only survive because of others: they simply don’t have to purchase the skills.

Also, there are some people who are a bit good at everything but masters of nothing. The class system – or more accurately, the different cost of skills based on class - prevents this type of character. It also prevents career changes – some people do start off as one thing and end as another.

Finally, some costs just don’t make sense. Why does it cost a druid 3 points to get Titre I, which is essentially freedom, when in reality, living out in the woods, they’re probably the most likely to actually be free. Or Soigneur costs 2 points for a warrior, when many people who train for battle also learn how to treat minor wounds and bandage people – they’re the most likely to actually need it.

The real issue of everything mentioned above is not the classes per se, but the different costs of skills based on your class. The classes themselves are nice in that they give a nice little bonus that only someone of that class receives. I think that’s fine. As an alternative, you could even create a set of three skills, one of each level, that only someone from that class can learn. These would have to be something really unique or special to explain why only people of that class can learn them – perhaps something that can only be learned at the guild of wizards for mages, so those who aren’t mages can learn magic on their own, but not the mage-only skills. A good class-only skill for spellcasters is perhaps Sorcellerie II and Sorcellerie III is only available to mages; everyone can learn magic, but only mages can get the really powerful spells.

RECOMMENDATION: - Remove the different cost of skills for different “classes”

OPTIONAL: - Remove the classes, or, alternatively, perhaps create very specific class-only skills.

SKILL PROGRESSION

I do not understand the “pyramid” like requirement for improving skills. That is, why you must have 2 skills of level I (of the same skill branch) before you can get a skill of level 2, and two skills of level II (of the same skill branch) before you can get a skill of level III.

Beyond the fact that in some cases it is totally stupid in terms of specializing in skills – for example, a Soigneur has to learn Armurier I before he can learn Medecin (which goes completely against the whole purpose of classes that try to encourage you to find a niche and not learn different skills) – I do not see how this slows down progression at all, which seems to be the main reason for this rule; to prevent people from becoming too powerful too quickly.

But it doesn’t. Because at the end of the day, if you want 2 level 3 skills, it will cost you (assuming the 1 point for level I, 2 points for level II, and 3 points for level III) a total of 12 points, regardless of if that rule exists or not.

I can get my skills in either of these two orders:

a) By the current rules: Level I, Level I, Level II, Level II, Level III,
and Level III; or

b) If the rule didn’t exist: Level I, Level II, Level III, Level I, Level II,
and Level III

And it will still cost the same number of character points: 12. You wind up with two level III skills at the same time. Granted, with method b), a character can actually start a new character with his first level III skill, and only get the second at the end of his first year of playing him (assuming 3 games that give 2 points each every year). But by the end of year one, anyone can wind up with 2 level III skills. Does it really make that much of a difference?

This becomes even more of a moot point for further skills, because the rules only apply for your first level II and level III skills. After spending those points, anyone can simply continue to purchase skills with a Level I, Level II, and Level III progression, ultimately gaining one extra level III skill roughly each year. So, once a character is in play, the rules really doesn’t have that much of an effect.

Course, it does with respect to branching out into different skill branches. Again, this rule encourages niche protection as it makes it slightly slower to learn level III skills in a second branch… but again, regardless, after 12 points, that person is exactly where he would be if that rule didn’t exist.

I would suggest instead make a specific list of prerequisite skills for all skills. Every level II skill should have a specific level I skill as a prerequisite before you can buy it, and every level III skill should have a specific level II skill (which requires a specific level I skill) before you can buy that skill. This on its own can fill in the “niche protection” that the classes attempt to do, again showing you don’t necessarily need classes for that.

I think the list of prerequisites is mostly evident in the skill descriptions, and some are already indicated (ex: Soigneur -> Medecin -> Chirurgien ). It shouldn’t be hard to make the prerequisite list.

RECOMMENDATION: Remove class branches and the rules of 2 skills of a level before you can buy the second of the next. Simply install a clearly defined list of prerequisite skills.


If this approach, combined with removing classes and making all skills cost the same seems to allow characters to advance too fast (i.e., a fear of super-characters), then perhaps increase the cost. Instead of all skills costs 1 point for level I, 2 points for level II, and 3 points for level III (assuming we are removing the class-base costs for everyone), have it cost 2 points for level I, 4 points for level II, and 6 points for level III. This way, a starting character will at best have 3 skills of level I, or 1 level I and 1 level II. Progression will be slow, thus people will chose what they want more carefully.


SOCIAL SKILL ISSUES

I dislike the requirement of the skills Titre, Rang Militare, Reputation, and Infamie. There are a few reasons for this.

First, with respect to Titre, I find that it isn’t roleplayed at all in the game. Theoretically, the majority of people on the terrain are probably serfs, yet they are all acting as free men (Yes, there are some notable exceptions who do play the serfs well! I’m talking writ-large). The dislike of nobility is also clearly evident, yet someone raised from such a world should have much more respect for the nobles. And being a noble (Titre II or III) seems to give no real benefit in the game – and when it does, those playing serfs just get more upset at the nobles, reinforcing the lack of respect that should be there. In such a classed-based society, the nobles would have the serfs showing a lack of respect whipped or punished. You can’t get away with that in a GN because the nobles don’t have the horde of troops they should have, or the law to protect and back them up when the serf comes back seeking his revenge. You simply cannot enforce appropriate social dynamics in a small group of players – you would need a real society, with thousands of people, to get that enforced. People are playing this more like typical D&D games, where you are free to do what you want, and nobles are just rich people with money who can hire armies, not necessarily someone deserving respect.

And there’s nothing wrong with the later point of view. This is a game, after all. But if that’s the way it is being played, then I find having a Titre skill pointless. Instead of having everyone start as serfs, you may as well have them start as Freemen, and have Titre I represent the first ranks of nobility.

Or even better, get rid of social titles as skills completely. Why? Because Titre, like Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie, can be obtained in game through roleplay. Several of us just received a free Rang Militaire last game because of our rank at the Pass; this is freely awarded, without costing any points.

There are some nobles in the terrain that can award freedom, effectively giving a serf Titre I, and the player should theoretically get it for free. Or even worse, the player becomes obliged to pay the points for it. Imagine if a noble character decided to say to a serf character: “I give you your freedom.” Suddenly, that person now needs Titre I, which might cost as much as 3 points depending on the person’s class (as the rules are currently written, anyway). That person is stuck having to spend his next points to pay for that… and until he does, the freedom is meaningless… unless you play as if you have it and are indebted for the point cost, but at that point, why even bother paying for it if you can play as if you have it because a noble gave it to you. You may as well just receive it for free.

Likewise, if a bunch of players get together and form a mercenary unit and decide to name their leader Captain, he’s a Captain. He doesn’t need Rang Militaire. Everyone accepts him as their Captain, so he’s effectively a captain without paying for the rank. Sure, it may not be accepted by other nobles or whatever, but he’s still a Captain. And how is anyone even supposed to know if he actually paid for Rang Militaire anyway? He’ll be treated as such, and that will be the end of it.

Because these particular skills – Titre, Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie - are really story-based, I don’t think people should have to buy them. I understand the concept, and why it’s there. On a table-game, where there is a real society, it works great to have those as feats or advantages to purchase. I just don’t think it’s playable in a GN.

RECOMMENDATION: Get rid of the skills Titre, Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie. These should be story driven elements, awarded by the organizers as they see fit.

To prevent just anyone from calling themselves Baron, Duke, Imperial General, create a rule that prevents any starting character from having any type of title without the organizer’s approval. But once in game, whatever they earn is far game.

MAGIC SPELLS

I have a lot of issues with magic as currently defined. I agree with statements already made that magic is way too powerful. There are several spells – such as Someil and Vignes - that you can point at someone and effectively take them out of the battle. Even worse, most of those spells are Level I, which means that anyone can get them really quickly. The reverse is also true: there are Level I spells which can effectively remove you from all danger, making you effectively unkillable or impossible to capture (notably Sanctuaire and Arbre Creux). I find these too powerful, especially for something of level I.

With respect to the offensive spells, I would increase their level. At least to II, if not III – particularly if they can take someone out of the combat. Likewise, I think bringing in the concept of a catalyseur is probably good. It gives the target a chance - admittedly slim - to defend himself.

RECOMMENDATION: Review skill level of some of the spells and change accordingly.

Also, the way the rules are written, with each class having a different list of spells is just way to confusing. You seem to have three type of spellcasters: Feerie, Prodige, and Sorcellerie. You should re-organize the spells into three separate spell lists: one for each of the three types of magic. If a thief wants to learn to cast magic, he has to learn one of the three magical skills (whether Feerie, Prodige, and Sorcellerie) anyway, so why would such a person have different spells than someone else who learned the same magical skill?

RECOMMENDATION: Get rid of the spell lists for each class, and only make three spell lists: one for Prodige, one for Feerie, and one for Sorcellerie.

Finally, with respect to spells, I think they should all have a prerequisite list. To get Invisibilite Avance, you should need Invisibilite. To get Armure II you should need to first know Armure. As the rules are now, you just need any two Level I spells before you can learn any two Level II spells, regardless of spell school. I think this makes it too powerful again as characters can learn only the spells they want, without having to worry about getting basic spells that should logically lead up to the more powerful versions.

As with my recommendation for skills, I think each Level III spell should require a specific Level II spell as a prerequisite, which in turn should have a specific Level I spell as a prerequisite.

I think the chain of prerequisites is semi-obvious, but there are a few spells out there that would require some new spells to serve as prerequisites (for example, you might want to make some Extend Duration spells to serve as prerequisites to Permanence).

Yes, this will make it much more complicated and costly to play a powerful mage character. But that’s how it should be. Magic, when used well, can be very powerful in this game, as it can take opponents completely out of the battle. Yes, it takes mana and will cost money for spell components, but these will be gathered and saved by the mage, and he will eventually have enough mana to last him most battles. The limitations might limit how long before he can cast his spell a second time, but he only needs to cast it once to win. I personally think spellcasters need more limitations, and prerequisite requirements (in addition to increasing some of the spell levels) should be added in to add another limitation.

RECOMMENDATION: Add prerequisites to spells.


SPELL COMPONENTS

I understand the use of spell components as a means of limiting casters, but I don’t think it’s being implemented very well. For one, components are not being tracked: you do not register them at the end of the game – I myself was told to simply keep track myself of the amount of my spell components… after about 7 months of waiting over the winter, it’s hard to remember where you are at with all of them.

Also, you don’t even actually physically have all of your spell components. When you learn a new spell, you get “5” free components with it… but you never actually receive them. You aren’t given the components at homologation, nor do you carry them around. You just pretend you have the 5 free doses… so no one can really take them from you, you can’t sell them, etc.

I’m not against spell components, but the system has to be improved better and better tracked. People should be given spell components at the start of the game if they have a new spell, and you should have to return all spell components at the end of the game, along with all other items you are registering.

As a possible idea, perhaps use runes as your spell components. Simple little squares of wood with a symbol (and spell name) drawn on them. These are easy to make, easy to store away, and easy for the organizers to keep track off (as opposed to the number of drops in a vial to represent “larmes de fea”; how many drops are in there???). Also, if they’re cheap wood that’s easy to break, you can even require that they be broken for a spell to be cast… this alone will create gestures and slow down the time to cast a spell as the spellcaster will have to snap the piece of wood to get his spell off. And it’s much easier for someone to notice the use of the component and fact that a spell is being cast… or might be cast soon because a spellcaster is holding runes in his hands.

True, runes removes the fun of unusual spell components, but game-wise, it is much easier to manage. And magic runes are still traditional and historical, and as indicated above can add some other “casting” aspects to the game.


DURATION OF SPELLS/ABILITIES/POTIONS

Standardize all durations. Some are 2 minutes, some 5, some 10, some 15… while it’s all nice on paper, in-game, most people don’t have a watch (or don’t use one) and just guess as to the time, which winds up being way off… some people’s 5 minutes are longer than other people’s 15 minutes. This isn’t because of any cheating or anything (if fact, sometimes the non-tracked time has been detrimental to the player). It’s just that everyone has a different interpretation of the passing of time.

Also, not everyone is aware of how long some abilities last. Is invisibility 2 or 5 minutes? Depends on the exact spell, actually. It’s probably best if everything was given the exact same duration. If everything lasts, say 5 minutes, or takes 5 minutes, then it’s easy to know. Any time anyone has a “how long” question, there’s one number to know. How long am I unconscious? 5 minutes. How long to heal the arm? 5 minutes. How long does that magical fear last? 5 minutes.

RECOMMENDATION: Create a specific time that is used for everything, whether as the time it takes to do something, or the time a spell effect lasts.

Granted, the above won’t fix the problem of people not counting time the same way, but it will at least solve the issue of not knowing how long something lasts. You won’t have to ask the NPC that casts a spell on you “how long does it last?”



DAY-BASED MAGIC

My next suggestion is much more radical, and a bit outside the box and would require much more work at re-tweaking magical skills. With this idea, make magic durations based on the day, or more specifically sunrise/dawn. With this suggestion, I am asking opinions or ideas from others on the babbillard as opposed to making an actual recommendation.

With this idea, Mana Points are not regained by resting or meditation. Instead, your Mana Points are all you have for an entire day. Your Mana Points replenish at sunrise. If you use them all early in the day, then you are out until the next sunrise.

Skills that would normally allow you to regain Mana faster instead give you extra Mana Points for the day. For example, perhaps Meditation would allow you, once per day, to meditate and receive an extra 2 Mana Points for that day. They’re just another way to get extra Mana Points.

(This would of course require revisiting all the skills related to Mana to ensure that they are well balanced with each other, thus the requirement of a lot more work with this idea.)

In this, long-term spells, such as Armure, also only last until sunrise. In fact, all spells currently in effect automatically end at sunrise. A caster would have to cast them again the next day (and use up some of his daily mana) to keep the effect going.

The advantage of this system is it helps better define Alchimie and potions. I have seen numerous arguments as to how long a potion should last. The official rules is 6 hours, which is way too short. Some have suggested 12 or 24 hours, others suggested 48 hours for the entire weekend. With the day-based magic, the potion is good until sunrise. At sunrise, the magic in the potion ends, just like normal spells. A potion therefore merely becomes a method of “casting a spell” in advance and given it to someone else to use it as they see fit. It gives no benefit to the alchemist himself, as he still uses his mana for the day. The benefit is that someone else can now use that mana/spell by drinking the potion.

Any thoughts or comments?

A couple of quick comments:

1. "spells like Sanctuarie and Arbre Creux make people invincible". I disagree. I have had quite a few NPCs walk through my spells, dispell it, or throw me from my tree into another carnivorous tree. Not being a warrior and not having a tonne of extra hit points like the warriors, most druids, mages, priests, etc., cannot take the hits of 3 points of damage. It is really rare these days to find an NPC that is doing 1 point of damage, or at least that has been my experience in battle and most of them don't fall from one point of damage either. So, although you might call it whimpering and whining from my part, I say leave those of us who are not warriors one or two pathetic tiny spells to stay out of a battle and safe, when we are not being offensive.

2. I agree that being able to point at someone and cast a spell is very powerful. The use of a catelyzer would make it more balanced and also make it easier to determine who is the target of a spell when there are many people in the area.

3. The use of spell components: If you are not using them, then you are cheating! I can't remember how many times I have had to buy more salt or used it up because it melted in my hand or I dropped or lost my little birch bark container. Also, you should be writing them down on your character sheet when you leave the game. If you can remember how many new points you got to spend by attending the GN, then you should also be able to write down your unused components. The use of little wooden runes and breaking them is good in theory, but in reality, it would just cause a bunch of litter on the ground with people dropping them when they try to break them.

4. Spell prerequisites: I was told that if it has the same name and I, II or III after it, then it is a prerequisite. I believe it mentions that in the rules for the skills and it does say the spells follow the same rules as the skills. This needs to be clarified in the rules

5. Mana recovery: I have spent hours trying to meditate to regain my mana even with the ability to meditate. I think spending almost all of your points to be able to cast 3, 6 or 9 spells a day is a bit extreme...

6. Potions. Make them last for the weekend and make it simpler for everyone.

7. Social status. I agree that it is hard to enforce in a game. Either have everyone start as free people and pay for additional status or only get it through role playing in game.

8. Something new: create another branch that is general and has the same cost for all classes and includes: free person (title I), language (english), language (french). Everyone keeps telling me how simple it is to learn another language when you are surrounded by it, and the fact you really have to learn it in real life makes it kind of crazy for some people to have to pay 2 or 3 points to use another language they need to actually understand and speak anyway...

Before I read everything in details... rewrite... the... rules? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT AGAIN! PLEASE NO! IS THERE NO GODS!

Srsly, I brought this on myself so I can't complain and you do bring up some good points. Only problem is, I have no idea how I can do major fixing on a grand scale timewise. I have very limited help.

Other problem is, while I know there is a lot of tweaking left to be done, keep in mind that I absolutely refuse to do anything that will force me to rewrite an entire set of rules. Clearing up to make more understandable, changing a few things to make fairer; yes. Starting form scratch again; HELLZ NO!

Now that MY personal bitchingness is over... THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! for the comments. I'm mostly not even there most of the time and I know there's some stuff that just isn't working but it can't be fixed if no one tells me whats wrong since I'm not there! I'm gonna read everything very carefully and see what can be done about it.

Citation :

For example Point de Corps I is level I in the description, and level II in the table. Which is correct?

Points de Corps I is a level II, it is correct where it is. That's where it starts.

Michael a écrit:

t? Mana I has Nature I or Religion I as a possible prerequisite, yet neither of those skills actually exist. I know several of these have been pointed out a few times, but they were never corrected.

I will change these to Prodiges I, Sorcellerie I & Féerie I. Thanks for pointing that out.

Michael a écrit:

CLASSSES AND CLASS-BASED SKILL LISTS

As such, the classes are well defined and I have no suggested changes for them.

I do question the need for them, however. I understand that the concept of classes is essentially for “niche protection;” that is, different people will have different skills which they will take in consequence of their class. The skills are priced according to your class to re-enforce this niche protection. This allows people to make sure that not everyone can do what they do and thus they feel needed, and also encourages people to form up into parties with people with different skills.

But is it really necessary? Everyone has a limited number of points, and no one can buy everything. Isn’t that enough of a niche protection?

Removing classes would imply that all skills cost the same. A level 1 skill is therefore 1 point for everyone, irrespective of the skill or the class of the person. I can absolutely see some people buying skills they haven’t before because it was too expensive for their class… more people are likely to get healing skills or stealth skills, for example. But that is actually logical for adventurers; real adventurers – whether by choice or forced into the situation – eventually learn skills for traveling and survival, stealth, first aid, and combat skills. Any real adventurer without such skills would most likely die. That’s the nature of the job of being an adventurer. Yes, some will be better than others at certain things, but that should be represented by purchasing higher levels of skills (levels II and III), not by making some skills cost more than others. And some people forced into adventuring don’t learn those skills and only survive because of others: they simply don’t have to purchase the skills.

Also, there are some people who are a bit good at everything but masters of nothing. The class system – or more accurately, the different cost of skills based on class - prevents this type of character. It also prevents career changes – some people do start off as one thing and end as another.

Finally, some costs just don’t make sense. Why does it cost a druid 3 points to get Titre I, which is essentially freedom, when in reality, living out in the woods, they’re probably the most likely to actually be free. Or Soigneur costs 2 points for a warrior, when many people who train for battle also learn how to treat minor wounds and bandage people – they’re the most likely to actually need it.

The real issue of everything mentioned above is not the classes per se, but the different costs of skills based on your class. The classes themselves are nice in that they give a nice little bonus that only someone of that class receives. I think that’s fine. As an alternative, you could even create a set of three skills, one of each level, that only someone from that class can learn. These would have to be something really unique or special to explain why only people of that class can learn them – perhaps something that can only be learned at the guild of wizards for mages, so those who aren’t mages can learn magic on their own, but not the mage-only skills. A good class-only skill for spellcasters is perhaps Sorcellerie II and Sorcellerie III is only available to mages; everyone can learn magic, but only mages can get the really powerful spells.

RECOMMENDATION: - Remove the different cost of skills for different “classes”

OPTIONAL: - Remove the classes, or, alternatively, perhaps create very specific class-only skills.

There is a reason for this. It might suck a bit in the player's point of view, but makes a lot of sense for the organisers. It all has to do with filing. By having trees of expertise with some options for branching out, we have a clearer understanding of who does what and what we need on site. It also gives us some control over what to do with players. Otherwise, storywise and gameplay wise it becomes hard to handle. It just gives us a quick way of assessing strategy.

Michael a écrit:

Granted, I know “fixing the rules” takes time, but many of these were pointed out on the babillard, and if there is time to write down the rule change on the babbilard, then there’s just as much time to change it in the main document. (Ben, if you need help with that, let me know; I’d be happy to provide assistance there.)

Dude, you have no idea. If you want to help, I bake you brownies, massage your feet and purchase a small monkey. Don't know why you would want a monkey but if you really helps; I get you one.

Michael a écrit:

SKILL PROGRESSION

I do not understand the “pyramid” like requirement for improving skills. That is, why you must have 2 skills of level I (of the same skill branch) before you can get a skill of level 2, and two skills of level II (of the same skill branch) before you can get a skill of level III.

Beyond the fact that in some cases it is totally stupid in terms of specializing in skills – for example, a Soigneur has to learn Armurier I before he can learn Medecin (which goes completely against the whole purpose of classes that try to encourage you to find a niche and not learn different skills) – I do not see how this slows down progression at all, which seems to be the main reason for this rule; to prevent people from becoming too powerful too quickly.

But it doesn’t. Because at the end of the day, if you want 2 level 3 skills, it will cost you (assuming the 1 point for level I, 2 points for level II, and 3 points for level III) a total of 12 points, regardless of if that rule exists or not.

Allrighty, the reason for that is to slow progression down, and is also for our mutual benefit as well. Point wise, you are right, it doesn't make much of a difference. However, skill wise it does. Level III's are harder to deal with from an NPC point of view, they are more powerful. PCs being more powerful means we have to boost NPCs. If we had as many NPCs as PCs that wouldn't be a problem but... it's not the case. We can't rely on any number of NPC's roadkill or roleplaywise.

Also, silly as it may sound, if given access to harder skills right away, players won't enjoy their characters as much and will change more frequently. I call it the "stick in the wheel" phenomena. The harder you have to work for something, the more ou will appreciate it and treasure your character and skills. Might sound stupid but I didn't make that rule, I just plays by it.

Michael a écrit:

SOCIAL SKILL ISSUES

I dislike the requirement of the skills Titre, Rang Militare, Reputation, and Infamie. There are a few reasons for this.

First, with respect to Titre, I find that it isn’t roleplayed at all in the game. Theoretically, the majority of people on the terrain are probably serfs, yet they are all acting as free men (Yes, there are some notable exceptions who do play the serfs well! I’m talking writ-large). The dislike of nobility is also clearly evident, yet someone raised from such a world should have much more respect for the nobles. And being a noble (Titre II or III) seems to give no real benefit in the game – and when it does, those playing serfs just get more upset at the nobles, reinforcing the lack of respect that should be there. In such a classed-based society, the nobles would have the serfs showing a lack of respect whipped or punished. You can’t get away with that in a GN because the nobles don’t have the horde of troops they should have, or the law to protect and back them up when the serf comes back seeking his revenge. You simply cannot enforce appropriate social dynamics in a small group of players – you would need a real society, with thousands of people, to get that enforced. People are playing this more like typical D&D games, where you are free to do what you want, and nobles are just rich people with money who can hire armies, not necessarily someone deserving respect.

And there’s nothing wrong with the later point of view. This is a game, after all. But if that’s the way it is being played, then I find having a Titre skill pointless. Instead of having everyone start as serfs, you may as well have them start as Freemen, and have Titre I represent the first ranks of nobility.

Or even better, get rid of social titles as skills completely. Why? Because Titre, like Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie, can be obtained in game through roleplay. Several of us just received a free Rang Militaire last game because of our rank at the Pass; this is freely awarded, without costing any points.

There are some nobles in the terrain that can award freedom, effectively giving a serf Titre I, and the player should theoretically get it for free. Or even worse, the player becomes obliged to pay the points for it. Imagine if a noble character decided to say to a serf character: “I give you your freedom.” Suddenly, that person now needs Titre I, which might cost as much as 3 points depending on the person’s class (as the rules are currently written, anyway). That person is stuck having to spend his next points to pay for that… and until he does, the freedom is meaningless… unless you play as if you have it and are indebted for the point cost, but at that point, why even bother paying for it if you can play as if you have it because a noble gave it to you. You may as well just receive it for free.

Likewise, if a bunch of players get together and form a mercenary unit and decide to name their leader Captain, he’s a Captain. He doesn’t need Rang Militaire. Everyone accepts him as their Captain, so he’s effectively a captain without paying for the rank. Sure, it may not be accepted by other nobles or whatever, but he’s still a Captain. And how is anyone even supposed to know if he actually paid for Rang Militaire anyway? He’ll be treated as such, and that will be the end of it.

Because these particular skills – Titre, Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie - are really story-based, I don’t think people should have to buy them. I understand the concept, and why it’s there. On a table-game, where there is a real society, it works great to have those as feats or advantages to purchase. I just don’t think it’s playable in a GN.

RECOMMENDATION: Get rid of the skills Titre, Rang Militaire, Reputation, and Infamie. These should be story driven elements, awarded by the organizers as they see fit.

To prevent just anyone from calling themselves Baron, Duke, Imperial General, create a rule that prevents any starting character from having any type of title without the organizer’s approval. But once in game, whatever they earn is far game.

That's our fault. I think we need to rewrite the explanations for what these do. Those are actually there to help us in the longrun to drive storylines. Eventually, people with titles will be helping us run the game through roleplay and it will lighten our load.

We unfortunately haven't had the chance to really put it in practice yet but Ben and I have also a few tricks up our sleeve to make them more efficient. Hehehe. I think it's ready to put into gear now that people are more familiar with our style and by familiar, I include Ben and me: we're still learning too.

Spells is the biggest bobo the rules have in my opinion. To understand the root of the problem, I'll gives a little rule history on why. It's no excuse, but at least everyone will understand where it came from and why the area is fuzzy.

Ben and I both came up with the general layout of rules and how they would work. Spells is an uncommon thing to hit location. Generally, in LARP settings, if you have hit location, you don't have spells or many of them. There's about 100 here.

When it came to actual rule writing. I wrote the general workings of them and the spells. Ben wrote the abilities. I reread and reworked the whole thing from top to bottom several times. I don't think even Ben has read the spells completely once yet.

During the first year that they were meant to be tested, I don't think anyone actually read the entire rules completely at all. I'm not even sure if anyone was a spell caster so the spells part was left aside. I wasn't there to play on site either. (Mostly because I was big as a house carrying Ben's human larva spawn. Then caring for the spawn and feeding the little leaches. Ahem...) Sooo... explanations as to how to play them we're kind of thrown about on all sides: Organisers and NPC's and PC's alike and now we have a mess.

Here's what I meant originally for spells:

- Strong stuff that was meant strong
- Limited quantities. Hence the hard to get Mana points and materials and yes, I wanted prerequisites: the vestiges of them are still there.
- Originally, if you were wearing iron armor, a number of spells just didn't work. I'll have to emphasize and clear that up as well.

The reason for this is that a hit point based system makes everyone a basic fighter. Anyone has the same opportunity to kick butt. It's cheaper to be a fighter and go up a notch or two. It costs more for mages but the mages have really strong power to back them up. When mages are out of juice they can don armor and still go kick ass regardless. So it evens out.

Technically, in the morning, since a mage slept, thay recover their full Mana points. I think I should make that clearer. So they aren't all that defenceless.

And the iron thingy balances stuff out too because some spells are area of affect where that works around it and others will slip off the metal wearer. That will have to be clarified or dumped maybe. This was really cool for when we get elves into the picture and other nasty creatures. Ben really hasn't taken advantage of it or put it into play. We'll have to fix that.

So there you have it: the history of bobos that is the spell list. Now you know what I wanted to do with it originally. It still has a lot of work to do so I'm all ears for suggestions.

Citation :

The reason for this is that a hit point based system makes everyone a basic fighter. Anyone has the same opportunity to kick butt. It's cheaper to be a fighter and go up a notch or two. It costs more for mages but the mages have really strong power to back them up. When mages are out of juice they can don armor and still go kick ass regardless. So it evens out.

Sure, in theory... but if I play a mage, I am not about to lug around a suit of chainmail for when I run out of spells.

...and I just don't see why I should join combats, when creatures seem to be made to give a challenge to the really combat-oriented characters - those who can hit for 2-3 points of damage, who have extra "hitpoints", etc.
I don't really see any point in fighting monsters knowing that they'll be able to take me down in one blow, so I hide behind my 'sanctuary' spells. My impression is that it's been getting "worse", in a way, as the actual fighters are getting more skills to improve their combat abilities, so the monsters have to keep up.
Why should I try to hit an NPC for a pathetic 1 point of damage - or waste mana to cast a 2pt of damage spell - when they're made to challenge the folks who can repeatedly hit for 2-3 points of damage?

I still think spells are to strong... i can have 100 skills points as a warrior and have a million points all over my body but all it takes to kill me is ONE level ONE spell that says sleep... then someone slits my throat... Game over...

What's the point of playing a warrior if a guy wearing a g-string with a cane can kill me with one-two words and pointing his scrawny little finger at me.... (rire incontrolable, laugh you're ass off for 2mins, but you can't defend youreself... so a 2 year old with a branch can kill a guy with full plate armor)....

Anyho... that's my sesssion of bitching... i carry around 30-40lbs of armor and a shield all day long and i get killed by a naked guy with a long finger.... pretty lame...

Joël a écrit:

I still think spells are to strong... i can have 100 skills points as a warrior and have a million points all over my body but all it takes to kill me is ONE level ONE spell that says sleep... then someone slits my throat... Game over...

What's the point of playing a warrior if a guy wearing a g-string with a cane can kill me with one-two words and pointing his scrawny little finger at me.... (rire incontrolable, laugh you're ass off for 2mins, but you can't defend youreself... so a 2 year old with a branch can kill a guy with full plate armor)....

Anyho... that's my sesssion of bitching... i carry around 30-40lbs of armor and a shield all day long and i get killed by a naked guy with a long finger.... pretty lame...

That's the thing, originally, guys wearing iron armor were imune.

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Citation :

The reason for this is that a hit point based system makes everyone a basic fighter. Anyone has the same opportunity to kick butt. It's cheaper to be a fighter and go up a notch or two. It costs more for mages but the mages have really strong power to back them up. When mages are out of juice they can don armor and still go kick ass regardless. So it evens out.

Sure, in theory... but if I play a mage, I am not about to lug around a suit of chainmail for when I run out of spells.

...and I just don't see why I should join combats, when creatures seem to be made to give a challenge to the really combat-oriented characters - those who can hit for 2-3 points of damage, who have extra "hitpoints", etc.
I don't really see any point in fighting monsters knowing that they'll be able to take me down in one blow, so I hide behind my 'sanctuary' spells. My impression is that it's been getting "worse", in a way, as the actual fighters are getting more skills to improve their combat abilities, so the monsters have to keep up.
Why should I try to hit an NPC for a pathetic 1 point of damage - or waste mana to cast a 2pt of damage spell - when they're made to challenge the folks who can repeatedly hit for 2-3 points of damage?

Actually that isn't true. NPCs are stronger when they hit a group of people if they run into a smaller group then they react accordingly.

Also, to make things easier for everyone, we're removing the option of hitting with 3 points next year.

Making NPC's stronger when they hit a large group, I assume is done to give people the chance to have a fight that doesn't end in 2 seconds. Unfortunately, there is a small problem with this when Sunday noon usually involves a mass battle where all the players are herded together. In order to figure out when the game ends, and to be there on time for the debrief you need to be near where the battle is taking place. Those of us that don't want to participate in battles usually grudgingly come along and then hide in trees or sanctuary spells, but if that spell is ended or if we run out of mana, we are stuck facing extra strong NPC's designed to give the fighters a challenge...

I am not sure what would work to solve the problem?... Maybe have the debrief at the same location always, and those who don't want to fight that last battle can wait at the debrief location? Or don't herd players into battles? Or just don't increase the power of the NPCs (when facing larger groups) and if players would like a longer challenging fight maybe they could do it through a duel or competition or something, that is based in role play, and if the NPCs are horribly outnumbered, then they fall quickly and too bad (since in many cases they are not only more powerful, but they also re-spawn...) ?

And I do understand that it is very hard to balance all the desires of the players and still make the game seem fair and fun for as many people as possible

You know, until now I don't think I actually fully realized that some people don't like to fight. Interesting: why wouldn't you want to?

But it's ok, that it has been figured out a solution has been found. Not to worry: the alternative won't be too painful. Mouhahahaha!

I don't mind the occasional fighting, but I find that this year has been brutal with my back that would go into insane shooting pain at the slightest touch from a hand....but it is getting much better now

Also, I have noticed that as people are getting more used to fighting, people (NPCs and Players) are tending to hit harder and swing faster in an attempt to get past the other persons hit... which makes getting hit a lot less appealing

Wohoo for a solution!!
*look of real worry at the "Mouhahahaha!"*

Nat a écrit:

Also, I have noticed that as people are getting more used to fighting, people (NPCs and Players) are tending to hit harder and swing faster in an attempt to get past the other persons hit... which makes getting hit a lot less appealing

Yeah about the tougher hitting. I got a bruise last time that was technicolor...

I gotta say, I'm also not very pro-fighting, myself... For the same reasons as Nat. I only half-heartedly will go the the "final Sunday battle" if I go at all, and would rather talk, or hide, than fight. For my character at the last GN, fighting meant certain death and loss of skills (twice). It was a bit frustrating, my character had no weapons, fighting skills or anything that would help me hide (sanctuaire, arbre creux). So if cannibals decided to have me for lunch, they did. All part of the game, though, I understand.

I don't think we'll ever have a perfect system where NPC groups automatically "adjust" to the group they are attacking. We can't expect the NPC's to know the strengths and weaknesses of each player on the terrain, it's just not feasible. Weaker playing characters will get killed by NPCs and there's no easy fix for that.

I like the rules as they are. Sure they can use a little tweaking and clarifications, but they don't need to be re-written or dramatically changed. I love the "slow-progression" style. I'm also loving the fact that no one player can be self-sufficient. It's too bad that the story does seem to revolve around a specific group, for the time being. It leaves others feeling a bit left out of the loop.

S'all for me

Marie-Hélène a écrit:

Michael a écrit:

Granted, I know “fixing the rules” takes time, but many of these were pointed out on the babillard, and if there is time to write down the rule change on the babbilard, then there’s just as much time to change it in the main document. (Ben, if you need help with that, let me know; I’d be happy to provide assistance there.)

Dude, you have no idea. If you want to help, I bake you brownies, massage your feet and purchase a small monkey. Don't know why you would want a monkey but if you really helps; I get you one.

Well, send the rules over in Word, and I'll make the clarrifcations and error conrections. I'll keep all changes tracked (can even append an annex of changes between each version).

And please hurry with the monkey... got to get him fully trained before the next GN.