A Kingdom Divided : Rules and game mechanics (Discussion)

Hey I have a question, what's an adventures base WP? With no armour of any kind.

I've been considering what troops to get in future if I survive this one and it'll probably be more of them but the information on adventures only says what they have with default kit is 3 WP, which would mean that adventures have 0 WP without armour. I'm guessing that's wrong so thought I should ask.

The second post of the Chronicles thread has been updated to include a map of the known world.

I always assumed that player vs. player combat in forum-based RPGs suffered due to lack of visual representation of our actions. Then today I had an idea: what if we had something? I had the idea of using Vassal's board game creation engine to make something simple which fits our purposes.

Below are three pictures of what I've made so far. It's not difficult, just time consuming. So, the question is: do you like to have something like that? Do you think it helps?

Spoiler:

 

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

When this forum got created, I thought its main focus was the individual knight. This to get away from the huge numbers and open commander-like battles.

Now, what you've done seems really nice, but personally I dislike the idea of implementing large battles for the players to command.
If this is just to clearify PC positions in a specific scene a simple paint drawing (like in the Wharf thread) is considerately less work than such an engine.

Thanks, this is the kind of feedback I want.

I got the idea after remembering a discussion with GMs about the issue of multiple characters. When some players RP other people, it becomes really difficult for me to track down what's is happening.


On another topic: Vassal released new versions of the Game of Thrones board game recently.

Personally im more in line with aelos train of thought. Take for example morek and lucius, the players of those two have focused more on their titular character and I think have come out the better for it.

On the other hand zekic has had to spend a large amount of attention on each of his gloves and likely due to that we know nxt to nothing ooc about rivathas character.

I know in my own mind I hadn't expected to see this much development of the PC warband... particularly not at the expense of the PC, as in a few cases.  That's largely just personal preference though... if you want to speak as a generic Order knight given a personality, that's your choice!  Only the PCs can earn renown however, which is something that may prove significant come reward time.  Of course, I had anticipated player-parties being larger warbands rather than the retinue for the PCs that have developed. (Thankfully so too, the RP wouldn't work very well if we actually had 20-50 soldiers per character!)

What has been an actual issue is the multiple characters being split up, and we've settled on a rule for it.  We weren't going to reveal it until after the event, partially as a way to preserve sanity (frequent rule updating is bad for sanity!) and also to avoid any unfair possibilities that arise from changing rules mid-game.  We simply can't keep up with the possibility of every player acting via three or four (or more!) characters.  RPing the other knights and soldiers is fine, if that's what you enjoy, but game-wise they can't be acting independently for the most part.  /ramble-off  We'll unveil the rule during the inter-event stage, more on what 'inter-event stage' is after we get to it! >.>

If it is any consolation, I feel this RP would be better if we did focus on just one character too. It just seems like its setup better for that type of format. As much as I love moving armies around, there is a time and a place for it.

Would it be possible to get some more types of troops available for hire? I'd love to get a few Meltine Lancers or Mettenheim Arbalseters.

To be honest... we have too many troops already.  

Does someone want to look at the stats and see if this is a niche already filled, mechanics-wise? Flavorwise, you can RP them however you please!

Mordred, what is the official status of Mettenheim ranged? Are they lorewise snipers or repeaters now?

Either, they'd use both. Big arbelests likely behind a pavise shield, while the repeaters would rely on the human shields in front of them.

Chances are you'd find the repeaters mixed in with the greatswords, a bastardised version of pike and shot formations (they are the shock troops sent in to break the enemy position after all). That'd also be a great counter for the actual Barclayan pike and shot.

The baclayans have guns now?

welp, remind me not to pick a fight with the mettenheim and barclayans.

Btw, how does AC work in this RP? is it dictated by armor? or armor simply gives wound points and everyone has the same AC?

They use crossbows. Essentially, early gunpowder era tactics have been adopted for non-gunpowder weapons. It's also why nations like Pendor can continue to use more classic tactics in lieu of adapting to their heavier neighbors. ie. It's why you aren't all dead in a massive invasion involving super-accurate muskets and artillery. >.>

And, if I understand the question correctly...armor simply gives additional WP.

This reminds me, is the P.A.S.W. still around? If they are, they would have been bound to come up with something interesting in a hundred years.

Also, what is this repeater crossbow? Is it like the Chinese one? Called a Chu Ko Nu or something?

Kind of like a lever action rifle, sort of, with bolts instead of bullets.

There is no AC. We assume armors don't prevent damage, they only stay in the way of the strike and are slowly damaged in your stead.

If you have a shield or the appropriate traits you are able to deflect or dodge, though.

Arcanum wrote:

Also, what is this repeater crossbow? Is it like the Chinese one? Called a Chu Ko Nu or something?

Kind of like a lever action rifle, sort of, with bolts instead of bullets.

They have two models, the Cho ke nu which is they "sub machine gun", and the full repeater Arbalest which is basically crossbows stuck on top of each other. The latter is more powerful but with a lesser rate of fire (and a grueling reload).

Thanks! if it's alright to ask, what rolls do we need to land to hit each other? i assume GMs use d20s? hope I'm not being too annoying with my curiosity

Every GM changes the equation and the dice slightly, but it is basically:

1d10 (random) + Skill value + modifiers
VS
opponent's 1d10 (random) + skill value + modifiers



Modifiers are item quality, item specials, trait specials, flanking, sneak, charging, formation, weather, etc

Ah i see, thanks it definitely helps understand better, just a minor question, what if say some one has 3 times your speed? would that be

1d10 (random) + Skill value + modifiers
VS
opponent's (1d10 (random) + skill value + modifiers)*3

?

Absolutely not. The basic instruction* for Speed values refers to number of attacks per round, calculated on a speed vs. speed proportion. Higher speed means higher attack rate against opponents with lower speed.

*. Remember the golden rule applies and GMs are free to make small and fair changes to that equation.

An issue that we originally solved (sadly the solution is totally irrelevant with the actual course of the RP) is how to handle Orders with differing numbers of PCs.

At this moment, we have two Orders with 3 PCs, and two Orders with 1 PC. I don't think the difference between 3 and 2 PC Orders is significant enough to worry about. Obviously then my concern is with the 1 PC Orders. (Dawn and Clarion)

The issue is that they can only pursue one objective at a time, and tend to have fewer troops than the other Orders do anyway. I have two solutions for this, but I'm optimistic that you guys have another one or several.

1. Extra renown at the end of an event. This would be a percentage, perhaps 50%. This gives the player the option to spend a little more in whatever they please, so that their PC can be a little more powerful and make up for the lack of support.

2. Extra troops. A handful of knights and retainers accomplishes the same goal as the above, but makes the decision of what type of power is to be gained. An alternative is an amount of renown that is earmarked specifically for troops, like the 120 at character creation.

-----

A third option is one I'm not very fond of, but perhaps everyone else is.

3. A 'lieutenant' NPC with some troops is assigned to the PC, and the PC can order that lieutenant to accomplish more diverse tasks. In the context of the first event, a lieutenant might have been sent to fight the City Watch at the Duke's Wharf while the PC went in search of Gudr.

I don't like this one because: 1. It creates more work with an extra character to keep track of. 2. It creates more work. >.> (This is both for the player and the GMs, as in effect the player is asked to pseudo-play for two.) 3. Since we need to restrict the actions of troops anyway, so that we don't bog down the RP, it results in some players playing more than others. All in all, the option strikes me as being too excessive of a solution for the 'problem' of picking an Order with fewer or more players than another.

What are your thoughts?

I like the idea of a lieutenant, it being kind of a "PC lite" but it would have to be handled carefully. Too much into it and the player might as well have created a new character.

Then again, there are the problems you stated, and I think making more work for GMs is just asking for events to take longer and longer.

However, if we give these PCs more renown it wouldn't take much for them to become uber death machines. By that I mean we'd have Natir rolling about  in Lordly armor and a masterwork weapon. He'd be unstoppable.

I'm all for making things as fair as possible but going too far in one direction is just as bad as doing nothing.

Maybe instead of 50% it could be 30% or just get a fixed number of troops.

I have contributed little of substance to this discussion so take it as you will