General Discussion

[DangerousPuhson]

If you're looking for a new reward metric, I guess social rewards would be a suitable vector to explore. Points for it seem a little too meta-management for my tastes though - XP is already ethereal enough. Maybe a slightly less nebulous concept like "renown" or "fame" could substitute.

 

[Beoric]

Why not give it "in game" rather than abstractly via a mechanic?

I am giving it in game. The mechanic helps me decide how much goodwill they have obtained, and when they have worn out their welcome. It also gives me a sense of what NPCs might reasonably demand in favours if they have helped the PCs in the past. And in a GP=XP game, it helps me to award the appropriate XPs in situation where I'm not giving out GPs; I'm already trying to quantify such situations in terms of XPs, so I will already have the number right there in front of me, I may as well use it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think what squeen means when he says "give it in game" is that points are arbitrary and non-tangible in the game world, whereas the reward should probably be something that the characters get to own or experience - a letter of endorsement, invite to a fine family supper, or choice of the best horses, etc. rather than "+3 social points" or what have you.

However, I know you probably plan to do it this way and only use the points for your own DM-facing personal tracking. It just didn't seem clear that was the intent.

 

[Beoric]

I think what squeen means when he says "give it in game" is that points are arbitrary and non-tangible in the game world, whereas the reward should probably be something that the characters get to own or experience - a letter of endorsement, invite to a fine family supper, or choice of the best horses, etc. rather than "+3 social points" or what have you.

However, I know you probably plan to do it this way and only use the points for your own DM-facing personal tracking. It just didn't seem clear that was the intent.

That is my intent. "Your money is no good here," If you ever need a favour, just write me," etc.

 

[squeen]

Sorry guys for dropping out of the conversation. All I meant was (as DP said) the reward should be received as game events and not a player-sheet quantity the PCs "spend". This is in the vein of a player talking to an NPC and making a convincing argument vs. making a "diplomacy skill check". I was afraid that @Beoric was totally abstracting the rewards by quantifying it. Sounds like that's not intended to be the case.

As a DM, I adjust NPCs reactions automatically (on the fly) based on the party's history, sans metric.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

As a DM, I adjust NPCs reactions automatically (on the fly) based on the party's history, sans metric.

Same, though I think there's something to be said about characters becoming famous later down the line - when the party hits a tipping point and more strangers know about them than don't, players eat that shit up. When they are greeted by groupies and fanboys, when they get invites to the swanky aristo events, when they never have to pay for a drink at a bar again... it's almost like a full game paradigm shift, going from nobody rat-catchers to full-on hero celebrities. Normal reaction tables would never cut it.

 

[Beoric]

Same, though I think there's something to be said about characters becoming famous later down the line - when the party hits a tipping point and more strangers know about them than don't, players eat that shit up. When they are greeted by groupies and fanboys, when they get invites to the swanky aristo events, when they never have to pay for a drink at a bar again... it's almost like a full game paradigm shift, going from nobody rat-catchers to full-on hero celebrities. Normal reaction tables would never cut it.

I'm not sure the reaction or morale tables were meant to cover the annual Rotary Christmas Gala.

 

[squeen]

Whole heartily agree. The PC go from nobodies that can't get a seat at the local bar to hobnobbing with high society over the course of a long campaign. Eventually, kings, generals, or kingmakers.

 

[Beoric]

I was looking at the 1e loyalty rules, and in the "TYPICAL LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE, AND MORALE CHECK SITUATIONS" section, one of the situations was "ordered to testify against liege" and I'm wondering just what sort of courtroom drama Gygax was running.

 

[Beoric]

I have my reaction/loyalty/morale/cohesion conversion process done in draft, and I'm looking forward to playtesting it.

I added cohesion to the mix because it was essentially following the same pattern as the others, and it is a better predictor of what happens if there is a failure of morale. So what NPCs do in the event of a morale failure is determined by a cohesion check - the same roll as before, but with a different modifier.

I'm also interested in what happens in-game if you have low morale and high cohesion (henchmen/hirelings like each other better than their liege, and may act against him), or high morale with low cohesion (henchmen/hirelings like their liege but hate each other, leading to infighting).

 

[Malrex]

Whole heartily agree. The PC go from nobodies that can't get a seat at the local bar to hobnobbing with high society over the course of a long campaign. Eventually, kings, generals, or kingmakers.

Aye...and this can be a tool for a DM to add in different enemy factions. Those who are jealous of the party, etc...and target them to get an edge for their main enemy (king, noble, etc).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

To the Americans out there, this morning:

*ahem*

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?!?!

That is all.

 

[Beoric]

To the Americans out there, this morning:

*ahem*

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?!?!

That is all.

Easy, man, there are going to be a lot of people in mourning.

 

[squeen]

I told y'all Gen X was going to have to step up and save the world:


Don't worry Canada. We'll liberate you next.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Don't worry Canada. We'll liberate you next.

You guys can't even liberate yourselves, apparently.

 

[The Heretic]

That is all.

It's long and complicated, but Trump's victory isn't all that surprising. I'm just worried about about what comes next. A second Trump presidency is not going to be a good thing. Some of us GenX'ers recognize Trump for the danger he is.

A significant number of people were most worried about the economy. The Democrats were being punished for inflation. Add to the that the splintering of the left over Israel and Gaza, and you get Trump as president. But ANYWAY.

All Dead Generations had an interesting essay about the Gygaxian Fortress. It's a very good read. https://alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com/2024/11/gygaxs-fortress.html


The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

All Dead Generations had an interesting essay about the Gygaxian Fortress. It's a very good read. https://alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com/2024/11/gygaxs-fortress.html

I read that article earlier this morning - it's good as a historical note, but I'm left wondering what the takeaway message is... "Design more like Gygax"? "Don't design like Gygax"? "Nobody designs like Gygax"?

What am I meant to do with this information?

 

[Beoric]

Don't worry Canada. We'll liberate you next.

I live in Alberta, I'm already getting a sense of what being "liberated" looks like. Which is mostly an increase in the number of things I'm not allowed to do any more.

EDIT: Case in point, this morning our esteemed premier announced she going to make it harder to get any kind of vaccination, including "influenza, pneumococcal and Tdap shots (which protect against pertussis [whooping cough], tetanus and diphtheria)" and, of course, COVID. We are going from over 500 locations, down to 25. That is 1 clinic per 20,000 people - or put another way, 1 clinic per 10,000 square miles. Because it's not enough to give people the freedom to be unvaccinated, she wants to infringe on the freedom to be vaccinated.

This is in keeping with the premier's support of the free market and capitalism, since most of those 500 clinics were privately run, and the 25 clinics are all owned by the government.

 

[Beoric]

Anyway,

 

[Beoric]

I read that article earlier this morning - it's good as a historical note, but I'm left wondering what the takeaway message is... "Design more like Gygax"? "Don't design like Gygax"? "Nobody designs like Gygax"?

What am I meant to do with this information?

I think there is a lot in there if you parse it out. I particularly liked this idea,

Combat of course requires some sense of balance between the forces to work as a game, though most of the tricks and tools the Gygaxian Fortress uses are about making sure the players have ways of rebalancing a scenario where the mechanics of direct combat greatly disfavor them.

It is a counterpoint to those in the OSR who hold Gygax' work up as an example of not balancing encounters or scenarios, if he consciously provided the means for clever players to level the playing field. It is also a statement of why factions, for instance, are useful in play, and if you keep that in your head, you can design your factions ensure that such leveling is possible.