|
Gambit
Oct 24, 2016 14:35:51 GMT
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 24, 2016 14:35:51 GMT
Referring to the thread and poll by Tristan i am seriously contemplating that we institute "gambit" for future large scale conflicts.
In the previous conflict with Nemeth this is how I envision a gambit would have been:
Actions could be allocated towards one of these goals:
1: Keeping Ursula alive vs. Killing her.
2: Keeping Ursula and other prisoners captured vs. freeing them
3: Establishing authority in a trial as that of the faiths or that of the nobles.
The outcome the various goals would then provide a base for following conflict.
I have the following question that need to be discussed:
When should a conflict be resolved with Gambit?
Input wanted, both to the question and in general!
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 24, 2016 14:57:27 GMT
Post by X-Nemeth on Oct 24, 2016 14:57:27 GMT
when three(two) or more decrees are made to the same conflict, all pertaining to different outcomes? It would be a decree to add an option to the gambit?
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 24, 2016 23:40:45 GMT
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 24, 2016 23:40:45 GMT
When should a conflict be resolved with Gambit? A gambit should be used to resolve a non-military conflict. I.e. a diplomatic or espionage based conflict. Good examples are public inquests, trials, rescues and the like.
I don't think players should be adding goals, they should be GM added based on how the play of the event is going. Possibly decrees are used when players want to apply influence without taking a diplomacy/espionage/other action. I.e. in the above example Caerleon makes a decree stating that the rule of law is paramount and should be applied in all situations, so having made the decree I can now spend influence at a 2:1 ration to support one of the results, in this case I could spend 10RP, getting a +5 to authority in a trial is that of the nobles.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 0:08:26 GMT
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 25, 2016 0:08:26 GMT
I just want to make a note that the rules already deal with 1 vs 1 (e.g. espionage vs counter-espionage, diplomacy vs diplomacy).
Gambits should only really apply if there's more than two players involved. Even then, I'm wondering if the usual rules don't already deal with it?
e.g. Diplomacy vs Diplomacy, 1 vs 3. Roll diplomacy for each. Whoever rolls the highest wins. The 3 have the advantage of rolling three times to try to get the highest roll (and assuming they all want more or less the same thing, it doesn't matter too much who actually wins the roll). However, the 1 might be a particularly powerful realm, who therefore has more bonuses to the roll, and would be more likely to win in a 1 vs 1 situation, but would have to roll higher than 3 people rolling d20s.
That would also reduce the impact of facing an overwhelming number of realms (as difficult as it would be for 1 realm to overcome 5 other realms, it wouldn't be totally impossible or require all of their actions, as it would under the originally proposed gambit rules). That's particularly important for realms who are otherwise alone in their agendas (e.g. dwarves).
It's essentially the gambit rules, but rather than pooling successes (and failures), you just pick whoever rolls the highest, and the side with more rolls is therefore more likely to win.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 11:22:01 GMT
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Oct 25, 2016 11:22:01 GMT
The disadvantage of the gambit and that way to resolve it. Assuming you want to announce the gambit and the stakes for at it at the latest halfway through a turn, then that means the stakes are kinda "locked" after that.
To be specific, if a gambit is setup halfway through a turn that says, for example, is X or Y the rightful heir? Then it's problematic if I go "I don't care about rightful, I'm going to assassinate X", especially if people put resources into supporting X, but it might also be problematic if I am not allowed to do it.
Basically, does the fact that a gambit is in play tell you anything about whether that gambit is going to be relevant come turn resolution?
I think the gambit rules makes the most sense when there are more than 3 players involved in the same conflict. 3 or less is "just" a matter of resolving up to a handful actions. After that the interactions increase sharply.
Also, as mentioned previously, I think the base difficulty of actions taken should factor into the contribution somehow, not only MoS and influence spent. It should definitely be an option to "weight" the starting point towards a certain outcome (by gm fiat), if one side has an obvious advantage.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 13:20:29 GMT
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 25, 2016 13:20:29 GMT
The idea as I see it is to allow people to affect a goal through influence rather than stacking up various successful actions.
But I like the idea that the more important the action is, the more it will help, thus domain actions could help more than court actions that in turn should help more than character actions. Direct involvement should also have some sort of risk associated with it, depending on the nature of the conflict. So trying to rescue a prisoner with a character action and failing could have fatal consequences while failing to convince people of the legitimacy of the nobles with a character action shouldn't have the same sort of risks.
I see the point that assassinations bring along, so that would probably be a given goal in situations where a single person or few persons are the center of the conflict. So in the case of succession issues a goal like this could be added:
Should the successors die or live through the turn. (Influence spent on die must be targeted on one, the other or both the heirs in question.)
So now my idea looks something like this:
When 4 or more domains have interest in a course of non martial events gambit is used:
Goals are set by the GM based on what he perceives as the key points of conflict. Players may come with suggestions if they feel their agenda is not obtainable through current goals, but it is the GM who ultimately chooses what goals will be used and declares the goals to be final.
Actions spent: (The actions are not rolled for, they grant bonus based on their type and may allow influence to be spent) Domain actions spent towards a goal grants +5 and ability to spend influence 2:1 Court actions spent towards a goal grants +2 and ability to spend influence 2:1 Character actions spent towards a goal grants +1 and characters who support a goal that fails could suffer some sort of consequence.
Starting disposition weighted as GM determines.
More thoughts are encouraged.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 13:45:34 GMT
Post by X-Nemeth on Oct 25, 2016 13:45:34 GMT
Character should be 1,2,5,10 based on follower,henchman,LT,Regent. High risk, high reward.
I still think several decrees should be made before the gambit is enabled. That way there is an official stance by certain people on the events, representing a "core" of either arguments. It would take two or three decrees (GMs choice) before the gambit is in play.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 20:57:24 GMT
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 25, 2016 20:57:24 GMT
I wasn't planning on letting followers or other non hired characters have influence on the roll. The lieutenant and the regent could use domain actions thus granting higher reward by themselves and henchmen and other able assistants would then grant +1 each. People would be free to make such decrees as part of the gambit, but if I think a gambit is needed it is because I see a conflict and then I wont need for people to state their intents in several decrees.
Example: The Queen of Mercia and her heir are lost but not confirmed dead, three nobles, one with ties to Tir Moreth, another with ties to Bayard and a third with ties to GLF start vying for the legitimacy of their personal claim to the throne. Bayard asks lothia in private for aid in installing the ruler he has ties to, while Tir Moreth does the same, only he asks Umbria. GLF still support the Queen, but just in case they vie for the legitimacy of the noble with ties to GLF. The other nobles of Mercia want their queen saved and try to quell all the claims as being rash and illegitimate. None of them need to go out openly and declare what they are doing with decrees but a lot of domains have some sort of interest in what happens.
Here a gambit would be employed: Noble A: He with ties to GLF Noble B: He with ties to Tir Moreth Noble C: He with ties to Bayard. (In a real situations those nobles would have names)
1) Who is the legitimate heir if both the Queen and her heir dies? a)Noble A, b)Noble B, c)Noble C, d) Cannot be answered until the queen and the prince are confirmed dead(at what point lands choice hopefully choose the next ruler.)
Notes on Goal 1: option d will start with a bonus, so if no influence is put towards the goal then D will most likely win.
2) Will the nobles die? A) Noble A must die, B) Noble B must die, C) Noble C must die D) Keep everyone alive
Notes to goal 2: A threshold is set for each noble so if none tries anything all will survive. Each noble that was pushed over the threshold will be assassinated. People can allocate their effort towards the goal of killing or keeping one of the nobles alive, or towards keeping all of the nobles alive.)
In the public eye the surviving noble with the lowest claim on the throne will look guilty if someone is murdered. Exeption: Should the noble with the highest claim be murdered, then the noble who now holds the highest claim look guilty. -- This is for purpose of Casus Belli that arises because of assassinations and are acted upon before a thorough investigation can be made. (all who spend actions or influence towards the death of a character will be guilty of helping in the murder in some way. The one who spent the most towards a murdered characters death will be the main instigator - you will be told how you are affected, but any investigations will not be handled until next turn at the earliest.)
With all the chatter there would be behind the scenes I wouldn't need decrees to aid me in setting the goals of the gambit.
|
|
|
Gambit
Oct 25, 2016 23:00:35 GMT
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 25, 2016 23:00:35 GMT
Actions spent: (The actions are not rolled for, they grant bonus based on their type and may allow influence to be spent) Domain actions spent towards a goal grants +5 and ability to spend influence 2:1 Court actions spent towards a goal grants +2 and ability to spend influence 2:1 Character actions spent towards a goal grants +1 and characters who support a goal that fails could suffer some sort of consequence. General thoughts.
1) Domain actions contributed towards the gauntlet should need to beat an arbitrary DC. If I try espionage in Camelot and am opposed by Law and Guild my action should fail to assist (most of the time), home ground advantage should be a thing. 2) Domain actions should contribute based on MOS, if you want to keep the +5 as a base for success you could add an additional +5 for every 10 MOS. I.e. DC is 10, I get a 21. I add +5 (Base Success) + 5 (MOS 11). 3) Domain actions are more valuable than court actions, they should allow spending influence at a better ratio. Possibly (Refer to influence chart p76) Domain actions start at the 1:1 level, court action start at 2:1 level and character actions (where the character can spend regency) start at the 3:1 level.
1) Who is the legitimate heir if both the Queen and her heir dies? a)Noble A, b)Noble B, c)Noble C, d) Cannot be answered until the queen and the prince are confirmed dead(at what point lands choice hopefully choose the next ruler.) Notes on Goal 1: option d will start with a bonus, so if no influence is put towards the goal then D will most likely win. 2) Will the nobles die? A) Noble A must die, B) Noble B must die, C) Noble C must die D) Keep everyone alive Notes to goal 2: A threshold is set for each noble so if none tries anything all will survive. Each noble that was pushed over the threshold will be assassinated. People can allocate their effort towards the goal of killing or keeping one of the nobles alive, or towards keeping all of the nobles alive.) I'd argue in general the Option D cases, i.e. nothing happens, should be avoided. I prefer the idea that if people take actions then something happens. I'd suggest that rather than giving Option D a bonus, just start options A-C at a negative amount that most be overcome for them to have a claim. Then allow people to allocate their action and then split their points for or against multiple options.
|
|