Reworking Prestige/Honour, etc.

[Tom]

The pie chart is just a display question. Even the old pie test had absolute values in the background. So that's something we can leave for later.

[Duvaille]

Tom,

I suppose the trickiest part here is to measure just what exactly is "success and failure in battle". Several aspects should probably be measured in order to have an accurate picture of how any given character behaves in war. There could be a pie chart of its own about this, actually.

On one hand you could measure simple activity by increasing the stat every time the character goes to battle. We could call that "eagerness". Then you could measure the battles in which he is on the winning side and his unit is not retreated or wiped out. That could very easily be "prudence". Then you could measure battles where the character is on the side that has somewhat lower chance for success (CS and defenses taken into account) and/or when the unit of the character is on the front lines/leads a charge. We could call that "courage". What's left after all this is victories in important battles when the odds are against you, which we could call "valor".

Further, each stat diminishes by itself over time, but valor decays very slowly, and could even be measured in absolute terms in the pie chart while the rest of them would share what's left from valor in relative terms. Eagerness would drop the fastest.

Example 1: A noble only ever goes to battles when he is sure he is on the winning side. His eagerness hardly ever rises, while his prudence gets frequent marks. Thus he's always low on courage and never gets valor.

Example 2: Another noble always rushes to war, no matter what the odds are, so he gets high marks on eagerness and on courage, and if he is successful, also some valor. But he will remain very low on prudence.

Example 3: Yet another noble seldom goes to war, but only does so when there is a great need. He will not be very eager, but can be seen as courageous and even valorous if he succeeds.

Valor would be the most important statistics in determining what kind of troops you will be able to recruit. Only the top 20% most valorous nobles in a realm can recruit special forces. The top 30% could recruit cavalry and top 50% could recruit the best available standard units.

Prudence, on the other hand, would effect the morale of your troops. The more prudence you are reputed to have, the more the troops trust you not to get them killed. The less prudence you have, relatively speaking, the more your troops are likely to desert you.

Courage would gain you respect in the eyes of your troops, and would let you get away with lesser payments.

Eagerness on the other hand would determine how many you could recruit. The soldiers want to see battle.

[Duvaille]

After a shower some of my thoughts realigned themselves:

Have two pies. One for warfare and another for social reputation. In the warfare pie "valor" gives bonuses to all of the other aspects, and in the social circle player given prestige gives bonuses to all the relevant fields, whereas player given "infamy" is sort of wasted space that is not useful at anything but reduces the relative impact of the other stats.

In warfare pie:
1) Courage affects the unit types you can recruit
2) Eagerness affects the number of men you can recruit
3) Prudence affects the unit morale
4) Valor gives bonuses to all above, so it is the most sought after stat (and hardest to gain)

In social pie:
1) Ruthlessness effects the strength of ruthless activities (harsh court, torture, looting, hang rebels etc.)
2) Gentleness effects mercy courts, courtier activities, priest activities, civil work etc.
3) Prestige gives bonus to both of them
4) Infamy wastes space in the pie

Prestige and infamy would take their player given shares, and the rest would be left for the balance between gentleness and ruthlessness (each prone to decay to the average position)

And there you have it.

[Norrel]

4) Infamy wastes space in the pie

Why should infamy hurt your character? Do we really want to discourage controversial behavior?

[Tom]

Overcomplicated and over-thought.

Stats shouldn't be overly complicated.

[Charles]

I actually like it, what would need to be simplified?

[Duvaille]

Tom,

Ok, so I'll take out my simplification machete chop the idea to pieces:

1) One stat for brutality-gentleness continuum. Brutal characters get bonus for brutal actions and a slight damage bonus in melee combat. Gentle characters get bonus in courtier type activities. Brutal characters are not as efficient with courtier type work and vice versa.

2) One stat for player given reputation. Good reputation would be beneficial in lordship positions and perhaps in the realm council (especially ruler). In essence good reputation would work towards making a statement about "who would you like to see in leadership positions". Comparisons would be made on realm level. Not sure what infamy would accomplish here, nor if more is even required than "negative or controversial stigma".

3) One stat for combat activity. The more you have it, the more troops you can command. Call it experience or whatever, but basically the more you march with you men, the better you are at commanding large groups of men. Reduces gradually when not gained regularly.

4) One stat for valor. You gain it when you assault cities and strongholds successfully. Valor levels are compared individually for each realm and are always relative values. Only top 50% valorous characters can recruit cavalry, and only top 20% can recruit special forces.

The good-evil continuum fleshes out some personality for the character, and here the ends balance out each other. You can't have it all. It's good to be a brutal lord on the fringe regions that need high control, but being nice has its benefits too. Player given reputation encourages rulers and dukes to appoint lords that the noble population in general sees as fit for leadership (if the candidates are otherwise equal). Infamy gives bad reputation which gives nice first impression effects for real social interaction. The two military stats encourage participation in war, and since they are reduced over time (especially combat activity), it works a little like "too much peace". Monsters and undead wouldn't count here.

There might be room here still for a third combat stat to measure the success of a character in battles, but as you said, that may be tricky to evaluate.

[Longmane]

With not only knowing the basic ideals/guidelines real medieval nobles strove to keep/follow, (although with some nobles being rather loose in their interpretations of them    ) but also having written evidence of what deeds/acts they themselves perceived as worthy of either praise or reproach, would it not be possible have the new system based on the three ideals seen as most important to them, insomuch as Honour, Prowess and Largesse?, being as those took into consideration everything from tournaments to piety ect.

[Tom]

have the new system based on the three ideals seen as most important to them, insomuch as Honour, Prowess and Largesse?, being as those took into consideration everything from tournaments to piety ect.

Please elaborate. That sounds like an interesting approach.

[Longmane]

It seems from what I've learnt about knights specifiably and medieval nobles in general they mostly all admired, and indeed attempted be admired for, three things in particular,....

1/ Honour such as that gained by various things like serving the realm/their liege dutifully, taking part in it's/his wars, behaving nobly and being of good character ect, as likewise that conferred by status, pious and chivalric acts or other deeds worthy of mention.

2/ Prowess as exemplified by that displayed in battle, tournaments or having accomplished some great feat of arms.

3/ Largaresse, part of the means that knights in particular used to elevate/distance different themselves from other classes, the bourgeois for example, insomuch as it's not how much gold ect you have, but how you use/display it that is the true proof of nobility.


So I thought that since many of the things BM nobles are able do come within those 3 brackets they could be used as a template for the new system of being rewarded for stuff.

A great understanding/insight on these things can be found by reading Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe by Richard W. Kaeuper, as not only details in full this kind of stuff, but also gives a damn good look into medieval society in general.

 

[Tom]

It sounds like a good approach.


I also take inspiration from the system used in the Pendragon roleplaying game. There are a number of values there that are set on a continuum where no end is the "bad" one, as both ends have their advantages and disadvantages, and in fact some people might prefer a balance over either.

[Duvaille]

Longmane,

This is a very appealing approach. Three stats is not overly complicated, yet it should be complex enough for the needs of a game. All of these three seem to be about appearances that are based on the choices an individual knight makes.

1) Honour, as you describe it here, would best be left with the players to decide. It is something quite intangible and hard to define exactly, with much room for debate. But it does sound very much like something that the noble society as a whole would know how to measure. You could give out "honor marks" (one / target character), where the ruler would have the most marks and a simple knight just a few. Foreign marks count for half, and marks received from your liege count as double.

2) Prowess, on the other hand, could be calculated by the game, and could gradually diminish over time. The game would keep a track of important events (winning a tournament or a duel, participating in a conquest of a city etc.) and have a base value calculated for that, which does not diminish (or does so very slowly). On top of that there would be the more fluctuating value calculated on more mundane battles and such. Add them together and we have your current prowess.

3) Largesse, however, is the trickiest of them all. Hosting a tournament and setting a decent prize for it would definitely count, as would family investments to a region - especially to one that is not where you have your estate. Or it could be doing civil or courtier work outside of your own region, if using your time could be included as well as using your gold. Maybe giving a unique item (in a good condition) to another noble could count as well (and once given out, the item would no longer give largesse bonuses). Still there is a strong feeling that an ordinary knight should be able to gain it as well, and I then need to again mention banquets and hunts held in his estate, where he can choose how much gold he spends on the arrangements.

Then there is the question of what these stats would actually accomplish. Right now honor and prestige become rather meaningless after a certain point, so I would really like to see all of them displayed in relative terms based on all the values in a realm (and when viewed individually, a comparison with your own stats). This would prevent all kinds of farming of a certain stat encouraged by the realm. If everyone displays much prowess, nobody stand out.

The effects of prowess might be the easiest to determine. Those with most prowess could recruit the largest number of men and also have access to all the types of units. Those with very little prowess (relatively speaking) can only dream of recruiting special forces and cavalry, and would not be able to have all that many archers or infantrymen either. Perhaps the very best archers and infantry units would be out of their reach as well. It's simple and intuitive.

Honour, on the other hand, could have a broader effect. Since it really is a statement about who you would like to succeed in his endeavors it could reflect that by giving a morale bonus to your unit and have your courtier activities be more efficient. Perhaps the peasants would be happier with a honorable lord as well, and all the peasants would be more loyal if the ruler of the realm was one of the most honorable nobles in the realm. Having a honorable general and marshal could have some positive effects, etc. This would encourage the characters to act in a way which would encourage the nobles with strong titles to value you more than the guy next to you.

Largesse is the true challenge here. If you spend your gold in ways not directly giving a benefit to the realm, the players will not appreciate that. Even if you manage to have a higher stat, it should not mean to the players that this is the one who wastes their gold and this is why they are losing the war. So whatever the activities are that gain you largesse, they should give real and tangible benefits to the others while nothing by itself to you.

The actual stat would tell the others what a nice guy you are, but what else would it give? Perhaps that by itself would be enough? High largesse might indirectly help you to get honor marks from the others. Or could it be that whatever you do to gain largesse gets more efficient with a high relative value? That in turn makes it a feedback loop, which is not nice. My mind is frozen here and I can think of nothing else but random benefits that you get here and there. "The reputation of your largesse gives you X."

[Longmane]

Larguesse was by it's very nature able be used mostly in a somewhat self-serving manner,  as let's remember the whole idea behind it was to enable nobles show off their chivalric generosity big style.

And so while agreeing it might be a challenge in one way it would not only be an interesting one, but could also be an enjoyable one.

The thing is we need also remember that point about it I said earlier, it's was "how you used and displayed" your wealth that mattered, insomuch as it was not simply a matter of dressing in the finest robes and dripping with gold and silver or building yourself a magnificent dwelling ect, as those kind of things could be done by anyone with wealth, no the thing with Largesse is that it had to be unselfish and for the betterment of others, or at the least was mostly able to be portrayed that way. (even if most of the other nobles themselves knew/suspected otherwise 

So you would be talking about such stuff as tournaments and gifts, sponsorships and donations, grand banquets when funds and time allowed them or small feasts for a dozen or so companions otherwise.

That was Largesse, basic snobbery attempting to be high chivalric generosity.

[Velax]

Perhaps giving a unique item to another noble for 0 gold could grant Largesse? There'd have to be something preventing two nobles from just passing items back and forth all the time for the stats.

[Indirik]

Or passing it around in a big circle.

Not that we've ever seen that happen before...