|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 30, 2016 9:19:35 GMT -5
Incentives, sure. But these incentives shouldn't feel forced, and they should only be encouraged over a more economical option if it is also supported by the setting. If someone wants to have units do all of their dirty-work for them, fine. The consequences of that are that they have to upkeep all of those units, and it might piss people off - who then have the choice to respond as players, rather than for us to handle a problem that can be solved IC.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 30, 2016 11:48:41 GMT -5
What you're saying makes sense, to a point, there are still aspects that need addressing. But what happens when the guy playing a Hida Bushi needs scouts to investigate something? It's well outside of his skillset (in fact, it's almost counter to it), so it's not reasonable for him to try and get a 'bonus' on the draw and go himself. It's much more efficient for him to just have the units do the job. Do you force him to find another PC? What if there aren't any Hiruma Bushi PC's? Do you force him to then find another PC with those particular skills? How do you make it make sense to him, when he has units within his clan who will do it without favors, etc? I'm not trying to be an ass, just making sure we're looking at the whole picture.
Oh, it's perfectly fine to explore different approaches...doing so before game(and before there's a lot of time invested in design) is ideal. Saves a lot of work in the long run!
I think we can *allow* ordering of units, but on a grand design style approach, I want the mechanics to encourage PC actions. In the end, it's a larp, not a multiplayer Civ game, and thus gameplay sort of has to be interpersonal. Typical conceits involve the PCs being just better than average, of particularly high station, in just the right place for all the interesting stuff at the right time, etc as part of justifying why they end up doing so much more personally than the average chap in their culture.
Yeah, it might be realistic for someone to just order specialists to do things rather than getting involved, or having to talk to people, but if everyone's doing that, then we end up with a meta where people are standing in line outside the map room, rather than interacting with each other to accomplish their goals. Whatever the specifics of the system we choose, we need to emphasize player interaction. Stealing from Alex, this falls into #thingswefailedatin7thsea, where the main room was essentially just socializing and waiting for the next mod to kick off. That ends up being really reliant on STs, and risks leaving people bored.
EH was better at this, with pretty explicit player interaction stuff, particularly during winter court. That's definitely one of those elements I wish to keep, and ideally, enhance.
I can see a justification that players will be expected to be able to order units to just do things, and we can support that to some extent, but whatever the details, I would like to see the mechanics encourage players to go negotiate with others to find specialists, or build a team to go, and have the NPC statblocks essentially in a support role. How exactly we accomplish that goal is a matter of justifications and number crunching, but I think scale helps a great deal. We will, generally, be dealing with smaller units, fewer units, and probably fewer exceedingly rare, high powered units. The Phoenix aren't going to send the elemental guard out at the beck and call of some folks doing rebuilding, at least, not for a goodly while.
I mean, in the end, if a Bushi realizes there is Shugenja specific spiritual plot here, I want him to be better off with an appropriate unit(if he even has access to shugenja units) than with nothing at all...but I do not think his first reaction should be to have his unit solve it, rather than seeking out noted shugenja among the PCs. If he ends up seeking out a PC, and having his unit assist them? That's fine.
So, if sending units to handle the problem is something we decide to allow, I would expect some significant degree of complication or chance of outright failure for individual units to be expected unless the problem is pretty minor and/or boring(ie, moving rocks). I'm not really worried about specific numbers until we all figure out what we're aiming at in terms of goals and themes, but I'll toss out some spitballed examples below:
Generic ashigaru unit: If sent out scouting, gives fairly generic, low information report about what's there. If it's a significant combat threat, big chance of not returning at all. Or one guy staggering back to give the report. Maybe a stealth roll or something to see if they bumped into the nasty or something, I dunno.
Specialized Scouting unit: More complete information, but less than a specialized PC might get. Better odds of avoiding traps, combat, etc in some fashion. But if roll is botched, still in bad things happening territory.
PC scouting: Solid information as to threats in area. If supported by one of the above units, receives a bonus to whatever the appropriate draw is. Specialized unit probably gives a higher bonus. No sudden death things in downtime actions, but will likely have plot hooks to resolve at game. Particularly bad scouting draws might(depending how we go) get less information, or inflict a fairly liveable effect on the PC. Maybe minor wounds or something if they blundered into a trap and rolled horribly, so they start the game down a little bit(some assumption of having healed up over downtime seems reasonable, but still feeling some effects?)
Does that seem reasonable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jun 30, 2016 14:11:42 GMT -5
Stealing from Alex, this falls into #thingswefailedatin7thsea,  Here's an idea: use the sample NPC stats ( here is one such document that, while not officially produced by AEG was published on the official l5r website) to get base troop stats. Assume that all units are the rank 1 appropriate type (i.e. a unit of Crab warriors are rank 1 Hida bushi, a unit of Dragon magistrates are rank 1 Kituski magistrates) who can assist PCs as with a cooperative skill check but the PC has to be the leader. We can come up with rules for buying more experienced units or leveling them up as the game progresses but that's not my point right now. Rather, it keeps the PCs doing the actions while giving them a benefit for having trained troops. For that matter, it gives us default stats for when we eventually do get mass combat. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 30, 2016 14:17:25 GMT -5
Yep, that sounds about right. Because I like writing examples...
Bob's Character wants to learn about some disappearances happening in Hex A1. Bob isn't a particularly good scout, and doesn't think it's prudent to try and scout the situation himself. Bob wants to make a name for himself, and handle the problem without looking to other PC's so he won't look weak (which is a totally reason IC justification!) He has a number of units at his disposal, largely Ashigaru units and powerful military units, but no scouts. Bob starts addressing the problem by sending in Ashigaru. None of them return from the trip.
He then sends a non-specialist military unit. The military unit makes it back wounded and reports that they were harrowed by a stealthy enemy, and they were forced to retreat. Bob has now lost a unit and has another wounded- it's pretty clear at this point the problem is a bit much for him with the resources he has. He now has several options.
1. Bob can ask another PC for help. He knows Sue is playing a PC who excels at scouting, and reluctantly asks her if she can look into the situation. He offers one of his healthy military units as support, as sue is a competent scout, but wouldn't be able to hold her own in if she gets jumped. Sue agrees, and the combined military strength of the unit and Sue's keen perception find the problem and handle it.
2. Bob can try and acquire a scout unit for help. However, this costs influence - and he already needs to spend a good deal of influence recouping his losses. He decides to save up his influence to get a new scout unit (which won't show till next session), but by then, another PC has solved the problem.
3. Bob will do something that completely surprises us and we won't be prepared for. But it's reasonable given the resources available to him.
While we prefer option 1 to happen, 2 and 3 need to be okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 30, 2016 14:28:39 GMT -5
An addendum to #1 - Unlike with having a unit do the task, Sue can see exactly what the creatures are. If she can't identify them, she will be able to give an accurate description to other PC's who might be able to. She'll be able to report on the terrain,sights, smells, etc. She gets to participate in a scene that she will be exciting and help both the player and the character learn something. Sending units does not provide that experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 30, 2016 14:31:06 GMT -5
Ideally, I would like for "form a group of PCs" to be best. Solo PC adventures are still super ST intensive. I'd suggest we come up with some sort of ballpark group size to aim for. Doesn't have to always be that, but maybe 4-6 or something is a good balance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 30, 2016 14:34:51 GMT -5
I definitely think we should design encounters for around 4 PC's, but if the PC's want to Go Alone(tm), that's their choice. They'll probably die, but maybe they won't go alone next time. It's our job to provide the encounters. If Sue doesn't think 'Hey, an entire unit of trained Samurai fell to these things, I should probably bring backup..." not our fault.
I may have just been playing world of darkness too long. I don't like it when the world is completely level appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 30, 2016 14:41:58 GMT -5
Oh yeah. If someone WANTS to try to solo encounters meant for 4+, they CAN. It's just horribly unwise. I'm absolutely okay with that, and I'll play the encounter straight. At first, I'll give out plenty of "are you sure"'s so folks get the general idea of expectations and risk, but someone will probably do the dumb and die. Such is life.
|
|
