Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : Yggdrasil (DM Andy) July 02, 2013, 09:19:56 PM
-
OK, Bobby's workshop is now open...
My thoughts: The core problem is in relation to the very high DC hires, where in practice the issue is trying to hire a lieutenant / other key person in one action - it is inherently something that should be done in several stages.
So:
1. Identify the problem - and convince the domain of the need.
2. Find a pool of potential recruits
3. Recruit selected person into an outer position
4. Move person up a tier action by action until they are where you want/need them
5. Hope that they stay there.
Even where the recruitment is internal - which should be fairly commonplace, you are still moving someone from local notable to domain-wide power-player, so a series of actions seems reasonable.
You wouldn't need each stage to be separate for many hires, and a lot of the time you might get an option come out of an adventure, or other domain play which reveals someone who might be great, or gives you a way to approach someone, etc.
A lieutenant's support gives +2 (usually), so I'd expect that on any given action a bonus of -5 to +5 could be expected from role-play, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong by an act of genius - or genius-level insanity.
-
That makes sense, after all a Lieutenant is somebody who is empowered to speak for you, so presumably he/she would be somebody you have taken time to get to know and trust, not just someone who happened to see a "help wanted" poster down by the docks.
-
If you are after an expert one action should suffice, it's only the "specials" who don't work in the written system, and from comments what was actually done was the spark (diplo, adventure, etc) followed by several actions.
I'd allow for a high roll achieving more than one stage, and a low roll getting someone good on paper but possibly with problems, a regent should however always be able to get somebody, it's somebody right that's the hard one (particularly for people with rare talents).
Some degree of fluffiness from DM's will always be necessary, and I'd rather avoid "I need 18+ to get them rolls" as that encourages multiple 1 gb/1RP lottery tickets rather than a solid plan which would be roll-play rather than role-play.
-
Well. I for one find the rules for what you can ask for murky...
The power of your hired help, seems largely to depend on what skills you say he have and your reason for him knowing those skills. And while description should give a bonus it should either enable you to talk the power of the character up, or be a modifier on the DAC, not sometimes one, sometimes the other and possibly both.
Here is a way the rules could be more clear:
Base DDC 5.
For that you get a low level character proficient in one skill
per level increment added + 3 DDC (medium, high)
One skill (proficient) added +1 DDC. Seccond +2 and so on
Skill upgraded from proficient to skilled. +1DDC for the first, +2 and so on
Skill upgraded from skilled to expert +2DDC for the first, +3 for the seccond and so on
Skill upgraded from expert to master + 3DDC for the first, +4 for the seccond and so on.
Realm magic ability: +3DDC per caster lvl
Bloodline +5DDC per step of strength (weak, minor... and so on)
All DDC increases are cumulative.
So a medium lvl unblooded character with 1 skill(skilled) and one skilled(master), unable to cast realm magic would be DDC 17
(Base 5 + 3[lvl] + 1 [skill added] + 8 [Skills upgraded])
This kind of hard number DDC would be more clear. And would eliminate doubt about what you can expect your hired help to do if you succeed your action.
But I don't know if it will solve anything except giving us number trolls peace of mind.
A way to solve the problem of trying to pull powerful characters out of thin air could be to set a time factor(5 times the DDC for instance)
A failed roll gives you your DAC modified result in progress towards getting the character. When you reach the time factor you get the character, and obviously a successful result gives you the character as well.
(if a player then tries to hire a character who is not available in the setting then the DM can explain that when the first action fail and where little resources are lost)
This approach will make Hail Mary attempts at getting 18 on the dice less attractive if you need a helper right now.
Hope my thoughts can help
-
Interesting discussion and proposals here. I am not a math head, but conceptually (numbers aside) I like what is being suggested. I could live with the current method, but It seems such a system as put forth would be an improvement, though without an example it might be difficult for the first timer to decipher, so defintely include an example and/or a table for reference.
-
By request:
| Hired Help by level: | Base DDC |
| Low | 5 |
| Medium | 8 |
| High | 11 |
| First (Best) skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +0 |
| skilled | +1 |
| Expert | +3 |
| Master | +6 |
| Second skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +1 |
| Skilled | +3 |
| Expert | +6 |
| Third skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +2 |
| Skilled | +5 |
| Expert | +9 |
| Fourth skill | DDC Modifier |
| Proficient | +3 |
| Skilled | +7 |
| Bloodline strength | DDC modifier |
| weak | +5 |
| minor | +10 |
| major | +15 |
| Caster lvl: | +2 per lvl |
Numbers from my proposal as a table.
You pick the level of the character, then you pick his most important skill, and then you decide to add up to 3 more skills.. Always adding the highest one first.
Lastly you choose BS if any and CL if any.
Remember:
Low= lvl 1-3
Medium = lvl 4-6
High = lvl 7-9
So don't be adding CL 5 to a low level character.
-
Yea that works. If caster level is not = to actual level, it indicates multi-classing.
Only thing left is to entice the GM's :)
-
So getting a high level master (spellcraft) skilled(Diplomacy) Proficient(administration) BS Minor. CL 8 Wizard/Expert capable of casting realm magic would be a DDC: 42
High lvl 11
Master(spellcraft)+6
Skilled(Diplomacy)+3
Proficient(Administration)+2
BS minor: +10
Caster Level 5: +10
-
I see three different methods of resolving actions such as Hire Help being proposed here. I think we all agree we want a consistent, clear set of rules rather than haphazard kludges or undocumented exceptions, so lets look at each option in turn, using the example of hiring a mid-level Wizard for advice and adventuring.
1) The Classic Method: This is the primary method used under Bjorn in RoE 1 & 2. DDCs must be met in a single roll and retried from scratch if the attempt fails. Additional 'Supportive' Actions can be performed alongside the Primary Action to provide simple numeric bonuses.
Example: Hiring the wizard has a DDC 25. Diplomacy performed with the Tower of Wizardry provides a +6 bonus to the DAC, requiring a 19 total from the roll and Influence.
2) The Sequence Method (Andy): Multiple actions must be performed successfully to achieve the goal. DDCs for these actions are lower individually than the single DDC of the Classic Method.
Comments: Bjorn used this method several times in RoE 1 & 2 with my actions, especially Research actions. However, this method would likely be less well-defined than the Classic Method, as creating a set rule structure for how many actions of what DDC would be needed would be very hard. The DM would have to make judgement calls on a case-by-case basis.
Example: Hiring the wizard requires two to three actions, each with DDC 10-15, depending on the DM's judgement - one would be Hire Help, and the other(s) would depend on how the player goes about the hiring, flavor-wise.
3) The Cumulative Method (Linde): A single DDC is set for a single action type. Multiple attempts can be made, with their results accumulating until the DDC is met.
Comments: My tabletop game uses this for Progress actions when designing new military units and new structures. We carry over 1/2 of the die roll and the full Influence spent each season as an accumulating bonus to future rolls - this lets us make steady progress towards the final result over the course of several seasons. Our DDCs for actions handled this way are typically VERY high by RoE standards - creating a new Legionnaires unit was a DDC 80 and took over a year, but the result was superior to any other shock infantry in the region.
Example: Hiring the wizard has a DDC 25. Three Hire Help actions are performed over two season, resulting in a 10 and a 7 in the first season for a total of 17, and a 14 in the second season, for a successful total of 31.
Once we're all agreed on how we want to perform actions (with Matt having a particularly loud voice in that), working out the details of how to calculate DDCs or actions required will be more straightforward. I like a lot of what Linde's proposed - it may be more 'crunchy' and detailed than is needed, but I don't think that will hurt things, and will help avoid confusion. First, though, I'd like to get people's comments on the larger possibilities that Andy and Linde have suggested. What do you guys think?
-
I like the cumulative method best! (Pat on the back to whomever came up with that idea)
I don't know if it would be better to set the goal for accumulation higher than the DDC, but say that a successful roll always gets you the man now. Or keep the goal level with the DDC.?
I think keeping it level with the DDC would be easier, but it is definitely a tweaking tool the DM could use to make Hail Mary attempts unattractive.
Sequence Method: Is also a viable option. One way to quickly adapt it would be to say it take one action +1 per 15 in the old DDC and that the new DDC is half the one I proposed... But this method still has the risk of zero progress and the feel of failure is greater if you have to redo an action.
Even though rolling a 4 when you needed 11 is no guarantee you wont roll 4 again.
Classic Method: Well, I never really felt this option was in play. I always got a character out of my effort. Not always one who could do all what I set out to find, but at least some of it. And that is something I liked a lot. A classic method with failed action = try again is something I would like to avoid. So I hope DM team will go for Sequence or Cumulative method.
-
I like the cumulative method too. And I think that not only Hire Help action could add to total. Well aimed diplomacy, adventure or espionage action should do it too. Other thing is, you shall never know how much you have accumulated (only DM know it).
Accumulated "success" could wane over time. If you do all your actions in a single turn, you should be more "efficient" than if you do one each turn. Also, action's spectacular failure could subtract from your goal.
I would also like the possibility of not so perfect candidates popping up halfway your effort, tempting you to take what is available rather than spend more time and effort.
-
great ideas Libor
-
I agree, Libor that is a great idea.
After some discussion in the chat, I think I believe most in the model Linde put in above, but with approximately doubled DDC's.
The catch is that you accumulate your result over time. Possibly with a loss per turn as Libor suggests.
When the total DDC is finally met, a character with those exact attributes appear.
The point of control in this model, for the GM's, is that the Player has to describe this new character with a proper story and background. - And if the player asks for something too silly, the GM simply asks the player to revise their request.
GM's workload is thus reduced to keeping track of the accumulating tally.
The Hire Help action is producing what could be called "HirePoints" for a "HirePool". Either for a character concept, but sometimes for a specific existing character.
All NPC's can be "priced" using the list above. And modifiers added to this HirePrice as the GM's see fit.
GM's can hand out "Favor" towards a hire attempt of any established NPC to a Player domain when they do nice or impressive things with that NPC.
It is fairly simple to keep track of, mechanically very predicatable and still completely under the GM's control.
-
I like the cumulative method too. And I think that not only Hire Help action could add to total. Well aimed diplomacy, adventure or espionage action should do it too. Other thing is, you shall never know how much you have accumulated (only DM know it).
Accumulated "success" could wane over time. If you do all your actions in a single turn, you should be more "efficient" than if you do one each turn. Also, action's spectacular failure could subtract from your goal.
I would also like the possibility of not so perfect candidates popping up halfway your effort, tempting you to take what is available rather than spend more time and effort.
Just to advocate the other side:
One could also argue that you should get diminished returns if you use 3 hire help actions in one turn... Your not more efficient just more annoying.? "Stop knocking on my door already, I am perfectly happy with my current employer!"
Bonus for doing it over several turns.? You're taking your time, laying the right strategy to enthrall him to join your cause.
But definitely nice with hidden accumulation and possibility of using several different actions.
-
Just to throw a wrench into the works, I like the idea of combining the sequence & cumulative method.
meaning you have to hire the person, then promote him.
Also, speaking from a looooong experience as a DM (36 years), the cumulative method is going to be an annoyance for the DMs to track, especially if it is extended to a lot of actions.
-
Just to throw a wrench into the works, I like the idea of combining the sequence & cumulative method.
meaning you have to hire the person, then promote him.
Yep, the tally could be tiered too perhaps.
Also, speaking from a looooong experience as a DM (36 years), the cumulative method is going to be an annoyance for the DMs to track, especially if it is extended to a lot of actions.
We have the power of excel spreadsheets to help us. It should not be a big chore...
-
Cumulative method risks to be too long in term of gameplay.
don't forget that complexity and too much work to do are the worst nightmares for every Dm running a BR-related campaign and the main causes of ruining out the campaign itself.
I' m for the classic or maybe the sequence method.
-
I am almost certain, that the current method is MORE work for a GM than the tally method. The tallies are just a tangible representation, where the current method's work all take place in the head of the GM. - And thus depend on his time and state of mind.
-
Cumulative method risks to be too long in term of gameplay.
don't forget that complexity and too much work to do are the worst nightmares for every Dm running a BR-related campaign and the main causes of ruining out the campaign itself.
I' m for the classic or maybe the sequence method.
Well.
Regarding complexity:
Sequenced method is just as complex as cumulative in terms of there is notes that need to be kept in an excel ark....
And classic method is just as complex, or even more so, since you can build up for one or more domain turns where you do adventures and diplomacy to get various bonuses to your final and very important roll. And those notes need to be kept AND rechecked.
Regarding game time:
If cumulative becomes too long in game play it is because the gm have rolled 15 dice for you and they all came up 1, 2 and 3.
You would not get an AA sooner by classic or sequence that way, in fact you would be right at square one with those two methods if gm rolled 1,2 or 3 for you all the time. But cumulative will have brought you to or very near to your goal after 15 sucky rolls.
If you vote for less complex, vote for sequenced or cumulative.
If you vote for the shortest in terms of game play, then vote classic or cumulative. Since only classic and cumulative have any chance of being performed in a single turn.
If you want to vote for a chance of the shortest game play and the least complex, then cumulative is the way to go.
-
Cumulative sounds good - you could track it on the DO just like tracking locations of military units, construction, etc.
My thoughts were something like the skill challenge idea (about the only part of 4e that I liked, but I confess I never played it). Promotion - thinking on most structures are fairly flat - or more accurately we only see the top part anyway. It may on be an issue for heirs, realm casters, etc.
I need to ask Matt about his views on realm casters generally - ROE II was discussing sifting the focus to the domain from the caster, if you moved in that direction big mods to deter hiring a spell caster would seem unnecessary, from recollection that was where the silly mods often came in preventing hires - as HA I got several administrators and mid-level fighters, I just couldn't hire a priest.
-
as HA I got several administrators and mid-level fighters, I just couldn't hire a priest.
This situation is not what ROE is supposed to be about is it though? - What point is there that a caster domain is unable to cast and have a lieutenant able to cast too?
Beyond 2 casters, additional casters have no value on the domain level so why overprice them so? - I guess the "problem" is many high level casters, so the threat of losing the regent caster becomes trivial.
The impact of that happening is brutal enough as it is though, even if a replacement is handy.
I am not a huge fan of the domains themselves providing the ability to cast. That will water out the character role completely, and any sane ruler will become a multi-purpose domain with spells and income generation.
As it is, the strongest caster is single class. The regent only collects regency depending on his class. This is a strong encouragement to divide roles accordingly. Multiclassing weakens caster ability, so most don't.
-
We have the power of excel spreadsheets to help us. It should not be a big chore...
Trust me, it is.
-
D&D skill challenges has the risk of failure build into when you fail enough checks. That is probably a good idea to remove that, since we a cumulating points and not successes.
The complexity of a skill challenge can be translated into the DDC. Simply put how hard is it to find the character.
skills, they will then be substituted for actions.
Actions you could possible use to hire someone:
Research- you find out what he like so you can offer it to him
Diplomacy- you "court" him
Adventure - you go looking for the stuff he wanted.
Espionage - you get him fired from his previous post/ find out his dirty secret
Hire help - you tell him how much you are willing to pay him and what information you will never reveal to people while he is loyal to you.
Finances - you set up a sweet little deal for him
Grant - you give him the stuff you found along with fancy ceremony to make him feel important and accept the darn job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that the same action can't be used more than once in the same turn towards hiring the same AA.
And we need a good base for DC with cumulative action.
I suggest this:
| Hired Help by level: | Base DDC |
| Low | 10 |
| Medium | 16 |
| High | 22 |
| First (Best) skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +0 |
| skilled | +2 |
| Expert | +6 |
| Master | +12 |
| Second skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +2 |
| Skilled | +6 |
| Expert | +12 |
| Third skill | DDC modifier |
| Proficient | +4 |
| Skilled | +10 |
| Expert | +18 |
| Fourth skill | DDC Modifier |
| Proficient | +6 |
| Skilled | +14 |
| Bloodline strength | DDC modifier |
| weak | +10 |
| minor | +20 |
| major | +30 |
| Caster lvl: | +4 per lvl |
-
What if we did a system of build points for AA's and hirelings?
NPC Class - 0 Points
Heroic (non-spellcasting) - 2 Points
Heroic (minor spellcasting) - 3 Points
Heroic (primary spellcasting) - 5 points
Low Level - 1 Points
Medium Level - 3 Points
High level - 5 Points
Very High Level - 7 Points
Legendary - 10 Points
Near-Epic - 13 Points
Epic - 20 Points
Non-Blooded - 0 Points
Blooded (tainted) - 2 Points
Blooded (minor) - 4 Points
Blooded (major) - 8 Points
Blooded (great) - 16 Points
etc.
So in concept, the Hired Help action would have a base success rate, DDC: 15, which starts you with a pool of 5 points, then the build pool is modified by the MoS (margin of success) for the action.
This is a simple action, that allows for a vast array of hired help options, but still has limits...
-
Interesting,
if I roll 18, do I then get 8 points or 6 points to build the character?
Or am I set at what DDC I chose before I roll the dice?
For sake of arguments later, I will chose to read modified by MOS as just that.
Why include epic, near epic and legendary characters as people you can hire, if not to invite game braking number tweaking?
Same with great blood strength?
It need a lot of work.
I like the idea because it could be simple and work.
I don't like the idea because of this example: I have court 5, I get Torele to cast royal fascade on me I use an AA to aid in the hire help. I take ten. I now have a high level heroic character. at no risk. and I could for full effect get 20 before the spell runs out.
So at this point I might as well roll the dice and take the 20 rolls. Sure I wont get one each time now, but if just one of the 20 rolls come up 20 I will get a 17 point character.
That is a near epic heroic class blooded character.
Or a legendary Primary spellcaster who is blooded
Or a low level npc class with a great bloodline I can steal YAY POWER MEE!!!!!
I will have spent a little over 20 gb on getting him unless I get lucky early. But I will most likely also have gotten other useful and nearly as powerful AAs in the process.
As this show these rules can be twisted to encourage a "Hail Mary" try for a great character.
So tweaking is definitely needed to make the idea viable. But it is interesting.
-
It definitely needs work. It is just an un-fleshed out idea at the moment.
At DDC 15, having a great court, and the support of an AA, likely just gets you the basic pool. You would need to back the action with influence to get any sort of significant pool. As so to how the MoS affects the pool, I don't know right now, maybe 2 for 1? I don't really think it matters largely, but it will depend on what the full menu of options for building are. Once the character basics are selected added purchase options for personality, skills, etc will quickly diminished a point system.
Incidentally, I don't see how your concerns can't happen with any action. Abuse is Abuse regardless of the rules that are set forth.
I do like this because at minimum, it could simplify the current set of rules and afford a lot of options for DMs without over complications. As someone who has run RoE before, it is a complex game with tons of moving pieces and complexity works to make the game overly difficult to run in a way that is fun for a DM.
-
Sits back, eats popcorn, watches people attempting to rework a rule turn it into rocket science.....grumbles he forgot the butter on the popcorn. ::)
-
It definitely needs work. It is just an un-fleshed out idea at the moment.
At DDC 15, having a great court, and the support of an AA, likely just gets you the basic pool. You would need to back the action with influence to get any sort of significant pool. As so to how the MoS affects the pool, I don't know right now, maybe 2 for 1? I don't really think it matters largely, but it will depend on what the full menu of options for building are. Once the character basics are selected added purchase options for personality, skills, etc will quickly diminished a point system.
to use Influence make take ten impossible, so it is always better to take a "Hail Mary" attempt as Andy called it and try to get the best possible character. - He wanted to avoid that so I try to respect that.
Incidentally, I don't see how your concerns can't happen with any action. Abuse is Abuse regardless of the rules that are set forth.
Well, if you don't include rules for how to make an epic great blood strength wizard, then people can't try to abuse the rules by hiring one.. - So you could try NOT to invite abuse by removing the dangling a carrots? Just like Matt is removing the P&H. You know that some people get tempted to do stupid. If you like them you remove the temptation so they can't do it. If you don't care you remove them after they have abused the rules.
I do like this because at minimum, it could simplify the current set of rules and afford a lot of options for DMs without over complications. As someone who has run RoE before, it is a complex game with tons of moving pieces and complexity works to make the game overly difficult to run in a way that is fun for a DM.
You got me there, I have not tried to run RoE. But it seems to me, that not creating so large an opportunity for power gaming should be in the interest of the DM team in order to keep the complexity at a minimum.
And even though Matt is going to run this game very different from how roe2 was run, and roe 2 was run differently than roe1. I still think that when you bring up that you have been DM in RoE I am entitled to expect a more well thought through idea, understanding for why giving the option to abuse encourages abuse, and the absence of bad numbers added to your idea.
The basic idea is still sound, but everything past: "What if we did a system of build points for AA's and hirelings?", is as I see it just you showing how not to do it.
To work your idea need:
DDC directly depending on BP of character. This depend on the method of action resolution.
Action resolution needs to be either all or nothing, cumulative or sequence. To accommodate Andy's request.
Or alternatively 100% on success or half of what you rolled on failure(so if you go after a DDC 19 but only roll modified 18 you get a character as if you rolled 9. or a 3 BP character by your BP calculations. If you on the other hand roll modified 25 you still only get your DDC 19 character.) This will also accommodate Andy's request.
The ridiculous high levels and BS need to be removed.
Proficiencies need to be addressed as they are more of a power factor than what class a character has.
Caster level needs to be addressed because it is not proportionally more powerful to get a wizard lvl 7 instead of a fighter lvl 7, than it is getting a lvl 2 wizard instead of a lvl 2 fighter.
When Matt decides how he wishes to run the action All or nothing, cumulative, sequence or something else, then we can start on a point by that work in synergy with that choice.
A BP system where DDC = BP is basically also what I have suggested for the cumulative action.
And in the interest of keeping things simple, it might be easier to keep BP = DDC and then DM can tweak the BP cost to get the DDC at the level where they want it.
You can also strip the cumulative action down to only Hire help, no other actions can apply, only once per character per turn and then take it from there. It will actually make the action more transparent in terms of what you can get and how long it will take. The other things were just fluffy additions that could bring life to the story. If the DM's feel that choice make the idea of cumulative more manageable.
Nothing is set in stone.
-
Great ideas being tossed around here, keep it flowing! Below are just my "2 cents" worth based on the ideas as I understand them so far...
I think you should definitely have the AA key stats built prior to the first DDC roll (GM should pre-approve), as well as a background story. Maybe the GM can modify what you want by +/- 2 based on this or other unknown variables, which means you may not necessarily get the EXACT AA you want, but would be the closest AA available to you (could be slightly better or worse). This would also introduce a bit of Fog around AA's in the recruitment stage which I think would add to the game.
I like the relative simplicity of the new proposals, where a higher DDC gets a better AA, with predetermined stats/characteristics. Any of the proposals can work, but I would suggest testing the process with a few example "stereotypical" AA builds (to see if it feels right).
I do like the concept of cumulative, so smaller realms have a shot at AA's that are closer in ability to the stronger realms AA's (though it will rightly take longer for the weaker realms to "convince" the better AA's to come on board with them vs. a more powerful realm that usually has more to offer), but there should be some sort of cap. I think if recruitment is unsuccessful on a turn, then only ~half of the previous total of accumulated AA recruitment points earned should carry forward to the next turn.
Maybe I am misreading something, I dont understand how someone should get 20 rolls and pick the best result for the AA, I would suggest only one roll turn (unless I am missing something?).
Again, great stuff guys, i think there is a winner in here somewhere.
-
Maybe I am misreading something, I dont understand how someone should get 20 rolls and pick the best result for the AA, I would suggest only one roll turn (unless I am missing something?).
Hire Help is a Court action, and you can have quite a few of these each turn if you have enough money.
I think it would be wise to add a: "You can only use one Hire Help action per Turn per position you are trying to fill. Multiple Hire Help actions in a single turn will apply to different persons being sought after." Limitation.
Or something to that effect.
Assuming a cumulative approach is used. I like that one most, so hey. :)
-
Maybe if you want to make more than one roll per season the action must be a realm action...
Just my action
-
I would say that if you wish to use a second Hire Help action on the same person in the same turn, then you have to come up with a justification for why it should be able to affect the action.
-
I would say that if you wish to use a second Hire Help action on the same person in the same turn, then you have to come up with a justification for why it should be able to affect the action.
Yeah. Either that or flat disallow.