View Full Version : Contacts as an Attribute?
Hi all,
Abzu and I have been discussing a possible revision to how Contacts work in the game, inspired by his new Resources mechanic, and we figured we'd throw it out there to the community at large to get some feedback.
The general idea is that your character would get an attribute called Contacts with an exponent. When you go searching for information, you'd roll your Contacts attribute against an Obstacle set by the GM.
I'm thinking of this as the bedrock of the social-oriented character. This is for the spymaster, the courtier, the detective, the street urchin...It all depends on how the player defines their social circle. This is about finding and getting information from informers and spies. Sussing out where the black market is (though this particular one may fall more into streetwise), knowing who among the duke's retinue (and servants) is susceptible to bribes or intimidation and who isn't. It's knowing people at the Harbormaster's office who can tell you whose ship just came into or left port, what the cargo was, and how many guards they have. It's finding someone in the quartermaster general's office who can tell you what the supply lines are for the unit that just left the city...
Really, I think a Contacts attribute is all about your ability to hunt down folks who can tell you (or at least lead you) to information that you need. I think actual contacts that are written down on the sheet may still be the best for this (maybe you get some sort of bonus dealing with them), but a Contacts attribute will reflect that network of people that you know or know about. When you travel someplace you've never been before, you'd be at a higher Obstacle, but the Contacts attribute still reflects your ability to understand how social networks work and how to find someone that might be able to give you the information that you need.
Also, as with Resources, I would suggest that a failed roll does not indicate that you don't get information (of course, you may not get all of it or some of it may be wrong, depending on the needs of the GM), instead, it means that you've committed some sort of social faux pas, or you have trusted the wrong contact. Instead of serving as a road block to the story, it should add some sort of complication. So...you get the information you need, but obviously that contact somehow signaled your enemies because you're ambushed on your way out of the alley...
I could see it acting as part of the Resources attribute if you want to do it that way. My only argument against it is that a thief, or detective or snitch could have tons of contacts and little in the way of material wealth. But I wouldn't put up much resistance if you want to do it that way.
So here are the questions:
1. First, what do you think of the concept overall? Do you like it? What difficulties do you see it raising?
2. What do you see Contact tests getting a character or not getting a character?
3. How would such a mechanic jibe with wises? Wises are already pretty cool and functional, we don't want to limit their role.
4. How do we limit a character's purview? The snitch isn't necessarily
going to have contacts in the military, the detective probably wouldn't
have contacts in international business. Do the skills/wise a character
has limit how/where he can use the Contacts attribute?
Ok, bare bones:
Contacts attribute would net information
Resources attribute nets material wealth/goods
They can meet in the middle, but they have separate arenas.
After reading Thor's post, perhaps this has been lying under the surface all along: How can we incorporate Affiliations, Reputation and "Contacts" into this attribute?
Can we have a "circles" resource point buy? You can choose what circles your character walks and thereby what information he's privy to. Or should the skills and wise purchased in burning determine the type of contacts/information access?
I also think Contacts should supplant single, named contacts unless a player wants to describe them. Perhaps naming/establishing actual personae earns a helping die?
Hm, rules for "establishing contacts?"
brainstorm!
-L
After taking a look at the new Resource rules again, one possibility is to use Contacts exactly like resources. I.E., your wises still let you track down the people who have the information you need, while the Contacts roll would determine whether you can actually get the information from the Contact -- in this case it would represent the leverage you can bring to bear. Stuff like Persuasion, intimidation, etc. could be used the way Haggling is used in the new Resource rules.
What do you think?
::Salivates wishing he knew what the Resources rules were::
. Stuff like Persuasion, intimidation, etc. could be used the way Haggling is used in the new Resource rules.
What do you think?
Well, that seems to either reduce the import of social skills, or add in another step to resolution.
I'd rather use Contacts to steer who you know, rather than what you get from them.
P1: "Shit. We've got to get into the temple some how!"
P2: "We do? My mother's sister was an Abbess, let me write a letter"
GM: "She was?"
P2: "I dunno, can I roll my Contacts?"
GM: "Sure. You don't have any Religion/Church-wise. That's pretty obscure to start, so how about Ob 4?"
P2: "Sure, I'll just dump in a few Persona points..."
That's how I envision the tests going. Actual interaction with the Contact governed by roleplay and social skills.
whaddya think?
-L
Verrain
09-14-2004, 02:41 PM
So here are the questions:
1. First, what do you think of the concept overall? Do you like it? What difficulties do you see it raising?
I like the concept overall. The main difficulties I see would be in how it would advance or decrease. PC's meet people all the time. When would they become contacts and alter the score? If you are based primarily in one city and travel to another, how much of your Contacts ratng goes with you? I presume similar questions have been come up for the Resources stat and been dealt with.
2. What do you see Contact tests getting a character or not getting a character?
Information at low successes, favors at high levels perhaps. Under the old system, you would go to your guardsman contact listed on your sheet and then use other social skills to try and get what you need out of them. So would this stat simply show that you do indeed know a guardsman and then you go on to other social skills? Sounds about right to me.
3. How would such a mechanic jibe with wises? Wises are already pretty cool and functional, we don't want to limit their role.
I see the two as complimentary really. Check your Noble-wise first to see if you know who is the current Defender of the Noble Cup. If you fail, check youe contacts to see if you know who is likely to know. In fact, I would have the Wise's FORK into the Contacts roll to show your familiarity with where to start looking.
4. How do we limit a character's purview? The snitch isn't necessarily
going to have contacts in the military, the detective probably wouldn't
have contacts in international business. Do the skills/wise a character
has limit how/where he can use the Contacts attribute?
Yes that is a tough one. For it is not impossible for a detective to have contacts in international business if his cases took him into the world once before. The solution to me would be to have an increased Ob for contacts outside of your area of expertise. But how to quanify how far outside is what ob penalty is tricky and subjective.
Still, not undoable.
Well, that seems to either reduce the import of social skills, or add in another step to resolution.
I'd rather use Contacts to steer who you know, rather than what you get from them.
P1: "Shit. We've got to get into the temple some how!"
P2: "We do? My mother's sister was an Abbess, let me write a letter"
GM: "She was?"
P2: "I dunno, can I roll my Contacts?"
GM: "Sure. You don't have any Religion/Church-wise. That's pretty obscure to start, so how about Ob 4?"
P2: "Sure, I'll just dump in a few Persona points..."
That's how I envision the tests going. Actual interaction with the Contact governed by roleplay and social skills.
whaddya think?
-L
Honestly, this is my preference as well. Just wanted to toss something out there that was modeled almost exactly from the resources rules. But yes, I would prefer the method above. However, my personal preference would also be for successes on the Contacts test to modify the Obstacle for getting information out of the Contact. Don't know how you feel about that.
I like the concept overall. The main difficulties I see would be in how it would advance or decrease. PC's meet people all the time. When would they become contacts and alter the score? If you are based primarily in one city and travel to another, how much of your Contacts ratng goes with you? I presume similar questions have been come up for the Resources stat and been dealt with.
Remember, it would be an attribute. You would advance it exactly like other attributes...
First, I think someone with a high exponent Contacts should be able to narrate a contact in a far-flung place (pending a successful roll), as per Abzu's example.
Also, I think that a person who is good at finding and making contacts (i.e., someone with a high exponent) should be able to use that even in a place where he doesn't have any contacts yet. He knows how things work, it's just more difficult to find someone (increased Obstacle).
Right.
Contacts tests would be made to find information. Establishing those contacts would be represented by advancement.
So starting skills and wises determine where you can ask for info? Or perhaps lifepaths determine your circles?
asking outside your circles -- outside your CB setting? -- raises obstacles? The further from your station you go, the higher the obstacle?
Should be very hard to name the king as a contact.
And failure... the most basic idea is: you don't know someone of that stature, or at least they won't return your calls.
I suppose there could be an Enmity failure option. If you fail the roll (by 1, say), you can tap the contact but you're now on their bad side.
Instead of a list of who you know, you could have "good side" and a "bad side" list.
hrm. How are we going to tie Affiliations and Reputation into this.
Don't be afraid to suggest radical changes.
-L
Wait, before we go off brainstorming, I just realized something:
The first step to good game design is to imagine how you want the mechanic to work in play. Making the dice behave after that is usually pretty easy.
So everyone tell me how they'd want something to work in actual play. give me an example.
-L
Kublai
09-14-2004, 03:19 PM
The first question I want answered is "Why?"
Why do we need a new mechanic? Has actual play failed you somehow that you need to rework the rules? I have never had a problem with the current way of doing things. Harumph.
My example would be pretty much exactly the one you laid out above. My (Forge-inspired) preference would be to give the player the ability to narrate a contact into the story.
Let's say my lowlife/thief/forger character needs a copy of the duke's seal for his activities. I want my guy to be able to say, "A couple of years ago, I helped this guy get some new papers after a run-in with a merchant that didn't go his way. I think he sweeps the floors in the duke's library these days..."
Or my trader character is trying to corner the market on shoe leather for the army. He says, "Back when I was an apprentice, there was this other guy who was an apprentice that I used to sneak out for a drink with, when the day was over. He's a clerk with the Quartermaster General's Purchasing Agent these days."
The first question I want answered is "Why?"
Why do we need a new mechanic? Has actual play failed you somehow that you need to rework the rules? I have never had a problem with the current way of doing things. Harumph.
Note to the audience: This is Pete's first response to every new mechanic presented.
Anyway, to answer Pete's question: YES, I have had trouble with the way contacts/relations work in game.
I want a more fluid system.
-L
Kublai
09-14-2004, 03:46 PM
I see the potential for abuse in a mechanic before I see its merit, tis all. :oops:
I like the part of the game where you don't know anyone so you have to go out and make new contacts using appropriate skills. I don't think I'd prefer a player simply to narrate that he knew someone and then rolled an attribute to prove it. With a lucky die roll, a peasant could call on a king, for heaven's sake! I'd much rather play out in a little adventure how the peasant makes a contact of that king.
I see the potential for abuse in a mechanic before I see its merit, tis all. :oops:
I like the part of the game where you don't know anyone so you have to go out and make new contacts using appropriate skills. I don't think I'd prefer a player simply to narrate that he knew someone and then rolled an attribute to prove it. With a lucky die roll, a peasant could call on a king, for heaven's sake! I'd much rather play out in a little adventure how the peasant makes a contact of that king.
Ok, let's work that into the mechanic.
I think Thor's ideas are valid for moving a game through all the gray areas of: "I need to find a guard who I can turn to our side..."
-L
Verrain
09-14-2004, 03:54 PM
OK, so I want to use the Contacts Attribute as a shorthand way of answering the question, do I know anyone that would be useful to me in this current situation?
I want that ability tied to either to Lifepaths or affiliations from play so that people aren't constantly calling in their favors from the King.
I want Wises to be able to influence the Contact roll but not have them tied together. I think it is quite possible to know a hell of a lot about the Nobles and yet have no chance of knowing anyone useful when it comes time to deal with them. I also think it possible to know many of them personally and still have no clue about the wider noble world that a wise would give you. But if you have the wise it should be easier to find an appropriate contact.
I still want to be able to buy specific contacts and affiliations. If a contact is important enough to my background that I require it to be there, I want to be able to buy it and not worry about the die roll to see if it exists. With affiliations, I think it should grant you a bonus to contacts within that sphere of influence.
Well there is my wish list.
Viper
09-14-2004, 03:55 PM
well, the problem of a peasant making a contact of the king could be solved by giving the king a very high obstacle, high enough so that even if you whittled it down with some persona points it would still be hard to make.
another option is to not allow the player to name a specific person he is looking to make a contact of, only a group or organization- i.e., he can't say I want to contact the king, but he can say I want to find someone in the court sympathetic to my needs, then he or the GM can narrate who it is.
I still want to be able to buy specific contacts and affiliations. If a contact is important enough to my background that I require it to be there, I want to be able to buy it and not worry about the die roll to see if it exists. With affiliations, I think it should grant you a bonus to contacts within that sphere of influence.
Cool Verrain. I'm with you on everything (including the stuff I snipped). I'd like to add that I want the Contacts and Affiliations you buy to be extremely important even if we have new contact rules. I want the guy who invests his resource points in contacts and affiliations to be rewarded with a better Contacts attribute. It only makes sense, afterall. Nobody exists in a vacuum. In meeting the people that became your contacts, you had to meet lots of other people too.
If you know a Lord, you've probably met his Major Domo too, even if he's not listed as a Contact. If you know a judge, you're probably passingly familiar with some clerks that work for him and probably a barrister or two and even a bailiff.
If you are part of a Noble family (i.e., have the affiliation), aside from the Contacts you get as RPs from that affiliation, you also have and 'in' with the entire family network. I may have only listed my mother, a cousin, and a nephew as contacts on my character sheet, but you better believe that I should be able to get at least an audience or meeting with other family members, and know a few retainers and servants.
So that's what I want this attribute to represent. It's about the whole network that your contacts exist in. For you, the named contacts on your sheet are the pinnacle of those networks, but you still have the ability to plug into other parts of the network too.
Verrain, Viper, I think you are both onto something.
I, too, want some bonus for naming your contacts. Perhaps you can choose one name for every point you put into contacts. Names give a +1D advantage to contact rolls in that sphere?
And if we limit your starting contact spheres to your LPs, then Kublai's quibble about needing actual play is taken care of: dah peasant still needs to get into noble circles to able to ply his skills.
And I love the inspecific option.
Ok, let's look at what Success and Failure mean. What does meeting the obstacle mean, as opposed to exceeding the obstacle? Missing by one as opposed to flubbing it?
Circles can raise obstacles.
Names can grant bonus dice.
What sets the base obstacle?
i'm such an eager beaver,
-L
To give the GM his due, I think the base Obstacle should depend upon the rarity of the information (or introduction) sought.
Those of you who are familiar with The Count of Monte Cristo, think of how the Count finagled his introduction to Paris Society. He used his contacts to discover that the son of his enemy (who did not know him in his new guise) was traveling to Venice for Carnival. Then he used his Contacts among the bandits there to kidnap the boy so that he could rescue him. Grateful, the boy extended an invitation to the Count to visit him in Paris, where he introduced him to Society.
Failure by just a couple of successes does not necessarily mean that you don't get what you're looking for, but it should add complications. And it should Tax your Contacts attribute.
foxandwarlock
09-14-2004, 04:18 PM
I came late to the party again.
Okay, so you can start with named Contacts and they add a +1D for familiarity.
But when a player reaches a situation where they need to develop a new contact and they roll their Contact attribute, success should mean defining who they just befriended and adding it to their named Contacts. And thereafter, they get the +1D when using that Contact due to familiarity.
And I think it makes sense that Advancement Tests apply for the Contact Attribute, but should only be counted if they are successful (i.e. Perception). Because, quite frankly, the more people you know, the easier it is to meet more and it broadens your friends of friends network. So, you have your Attribute and after you successfully "meet" a set number of people (i.e. Advancement Tests), your chances of meeting more people improve due to an enlarged social circle.
As for what circle you have access to, why not do this:
Ob 2 base.
+2 Ob if you do not have an appropriate Wise to the social circle you are trying to recruit from. That makes it a pretty tough test but doable given some heroic Artha use.
+1 Ob if you have the Wise but it is less then 3 (or whatever is deemed "average")
-1 Ob if over a rating 6 (or whatever is considered well-travelled in that circle)
All that being said, I'm with Kublai on the fear of such rules being abused.
Hey foxandwarlock,
Sounds pretty good. How about only allowing the player to add a new named Contact if they exceed the Obstacle by a certain amount?
foxandwarlock
09-14-2004, 04:23 PM
Otherwise, its a one-time only use Contact? And if they need "him" again they'd have to make the same roll.
Its like the guard they caught on a good day versus the guard who shared the character's purpose and befriended him. Sounds good.
So suddenly exceeding your Obstacle by a set amount has a very concrete gain - a new Contact on your sheet.
foxandwarlock
09-14-2004, 04:30 PM
The other reason I like this is that if you took a character who is brand new and is destined to be a spymaster, he has a high Contact Attribute. So he "knows" a lot of people or has the potential to.
Now, take that character down the road who's been through a couple of story arcs and has actually added Contacts to his sheet and because you roll when you need people - the archetypes of his Contacts are going to be all over the board - like a real spymaster or a real person. Looking at that sheet, it feels like the character knows a ton of people from many walks of life.
I like that the mechanic inspires that. That the attribute starts vague with untapped potential and defines itself (and relationships) over time. Just very cool - and makes for a very playable "spymaster"
Kublai
09-14-2004, 04:38 PM
Through course of play, I have made such a contact sheet using Persuasion and other skills. You realize you will be taking tests away from these great skills? Isn't that what these skills are for? To win over new contacts?
Through course of play, I have made such a contact sheet using Persuasion and other skills. You realize you will be taking tests away from these great skills? Isn't that what these skills are for? To win over new contacts?
You have a definite point as far as gaining new contacts, and I think it's important to consider. On the other hand, I don't think you'd be missing out on Persuasion tests. If I read what Luke is saying correctly, the Contact roll would only be for establishing a meeting with someone that has the information you need. You'd still need to Persuade them to give it to you. In fact, what if Persuasion worked in the same way that the Haggling skill works under the new Resources mechanic?
And just as an aside, one of the reasons I started thinking about this was seeing the new Resources rules in action in your Corso game. It all of a sudden made shopping for something tense and interesting and dramatic again. Who'd have guessed it?
I don't think there's anything wrong or broken with Contacts and Affiliations as they exist. But I think a new mechanic would be rewarding to a social-oriented character, and add some drama and tension to what they do. It establishes another mechanical niche for that sort of character that I think is really cool. Just like playing a trader with lots of resources and haggling is much cooler under the new Resources rules.
Through course of play, I have made such a contact sheet using Persuasion and other skills. You realize you will be taking tests away from these great skills? Isn't that what these skills are for? To win over new contacts?
but that's just it! you arbitrarily wrote those characters down on your sheet. they were personalities I presented in play, so you'd just write them down as contacts whether they "liked you" or not.
there's got to be a way to fix this.
-L
Another possibility: What if each character has a Social Aptitude (or something like it)? Each time you go to a particular contact, you can mark off a tick toward your aptitude? When you meet the aptitude, you gain that character as a Named Contact?
If we did that, we could also say that instead of giving players +1D for dealing with a Named contact, they work at Double Obstacle when trying to meet an Unnamed Contact. Of course, that's more of a stick method than a carrot method. Just thought I'd toss it out.
i was thinking that contacts get to be "named" when the attribute advances. Thor suggested that you get to write down a contact when the test you made counted toward advancement. that's probably a better, more fluid way to do it.
+1D is a nice chunky advantage in BW. let's make it worth it, and hard to get.
Also, what if we start thinking about this not in terms of precise "contacts" but in terms of "network" or "circles"?
-L
Drozdal
09-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Sounds pretty good. How about only allowing the player to add a new named Contact if they exceed the Obstacle by a certain amount?
Heh - Why do we always have to give players a benefit for succeded rolls (I know coz they are the focus of the game after all), what do you think about this: Failed rolls also could add contacts to your list, and those will be those who felt insulted, mocked, intimidated, cheated, scorned, or lied to by a PC. But on the other hand (after giving this idea some thought) GM should be be allowed to put that contact on player's sheet as a "anti-contact"?, or maybe we should take even one more step further, and create separate contact sheet for GM (where he will keep track of all those contacts not favourable to PC's?)
I'm assuming that Forks could be also applied to "Contact stat" rolls, right?
Drozdal
Verrain
09-14-2004, 07:25 PM
Ob 2 base.
+2 Ob if you do not have an appropriate Wise to the social circle you are trying to recruit from. That makes it a pretty tough test but doable given some heroic Artha use.
+1 Ob if you have the Wise but it is less then 3 (or whatever is deemed "average")
-1 Ob if over a rating 6 (or whatever is considered well-travelled in that circle)
All that being said, I'm with Kublai on the fear of such rules being abused.
I like the adjustments here I would only quibble with the base.
My thoughts ran along these lines. Find the lifepath of the fellow you wish to find and then find the fewest leads it would take to get there from one of your lifepaths. Add that number to an Ob of 1. Special subsets of any group, such as a guild or a specfic order of knights, would add another +1 ob.
Now I realize this gets clunky what with so many ways of getting from point A to point B but there are general trends like peasant usually going to village and villiage usually going to city such that we could just make a table with peasant at one end and noble court at the other and going from one set to another is a certain Ob. Make that Ob high enough and get rid of our peasant knowing the King problem.
but in terms of "network" or "circles"?
I guess it really depends on how those circles are defined and how granular we want that to be. We could define circles by wises possessed, or by lifepaths, or by Affiliations. I imagine there are a number of other ways to do it too.
I guess it really depends on how those circles are defined and how granular we want that to be. We could define circles by wises possessed, or by lifepaths, or by Affiliations. I imagine there are a number of other ways to do it too.
I'd prefer to keep the whole thing relatively loose... though it would be pretty easy to do a social wheel... hm...
A network/circle of potential contacts should be defined by the parameters of play. Is the game about your scheming family? That's your circle. Going outside that raises your obstacle.
Wait. That's it. Purchase your "Contacts" rating and choose your circle. Contacts are made initially within that circle. Players and GMs determine the nature of the circle at the start of play -- a wealthy Medici family's circle would incorporate political, merchantile and religious figures...
Hm... I think using the LP settings to define circles is a good idea.
-L
Kublai
09-15-2004, 11:31 AM
Through course of play, I have made such a contact sheet using Persuasion and other skills. You realize you will be taking tests away from these great skills? Isn't that what these skills are for? To win over new contacts?
but that's just it! you arbitrarily wrote those characters down on your sheet. they were personalities I presented in play, so you'd just write them down as contacts whether they "liked you" or not.
Hey! It's one of my BELIEFS! :oops:
Wait. That's it. Purchase your "Contacts" rating and choose your circle. Contacts are made initially within that circle. Players and GMs determine the nature of the circle at the start of play -- a wealthy Medici family's circle would incorporate political, merchantile and religious figures...
Hm... I think using the LP settings to define circles is a good idea.
I like this a lot. I especially like the fact that a person that wants contacts at a lot of different levels will either have to move through a lot of different settings, or have to settle for building networks in those circles during play. I could envision games, say a group of diplomats/spies, where building those social networks at various levels is the focus of play.
In the Burning Wheel, System (in this case, character creation specifically) integrates Setting and Character as combined things. You can also see Color, mainly in the form of the asterisked Traits. Situation is the weakest in BW at this point of using the system, although players who feel this lack at this point may either check with the GM to make sure Situation is well on its way, or rack up the tension by choosing interesting Contacts and Affiliations.
Ron makes an important point here that I'm definitely forgetting as we abstract this mechanic. We've got to allow players to create personalities character burning and hand them over to the GM and say, "screw me with this please." This has no mechanical application nor need of one. It's a meta-game thing.
Hrm.
Ron makes an important point here that I'm definitely forgetting as we abstract this mechanic. We've got to allow players to create personalities character burning and hand them over to the GM and say, "screw me with this please." This has no mechanical application nor need of one. It's a meta-game thing.
Okay. I'm not really sure I follow what you're getting at here. Do you think this mechanic would invalidate that? Or are you looking for something additional that would underscore this aspect of the game?
I was getting a little too abstract in my thinking...
I had forgotten the prime use of contacts, as Ron stated above.
The mechanic I am after really is something completely separate from the established relationships of the character.
Damn. That's it.
Relationships and Circles.
Relationships are folks whom you know personally or professionally and can at least speak to. Friends, enemies and close family.
Circles are areas where you have a little sway due to your history and relationships and might be able to find someone who can help you out.
how's that sound?
-L
Verrain
09-15-2004, 01:29 PM
*nods*
That's the way I was thinking about it.
wises= how, what and a broader scope of who.
circles= specific who.
P1: "Are there any Noble families out of favor in Furstenburg?"
GM: "Roll your Noble-wise. 2 successes? Yeah, the Ordog."
P1: "I want to test my Cirlces -- I'm born Noble -- I paged with an Ordog as boy. I think they have a villa here."
GM: "Ok, that's an Ob 3 test. Ya failed? Oh he's here, but he happens to be looking for you, too. Seems you won a horse from him in a bad bet."
P1: "Oh. Heh. I did, didn't I."
whaddya think,
-L
I like it a lot abzu. I think it does exactly what I envisioned it doing.
My friend Bob put it well, "So it takes the place of all your Insignificant contacts?"
Yes. All the contacts that you should have due to your character's experience get folded into your Circles. It allows for more fluidity in sculpting the story, and more player control. Which is ok.
So we've got a relatively clear picture of how this should work in play.
How do you get it?
I think it should be a product of your lifepaths and skills. It's rating determine by what you did and what you learned -- who you met and who you learned from.
Modified by specific affiliations to organizations -- chosen in character burning -- and by reputation.
I don't have a specific mechanic in mind yet, but I think it's going to be pretty straightforward.
Should players be able to invest RPs to raise their Circles?
-L
Ok, so I made some notes about Circles last night:
You have 1 Circles rating. It has a shade/exponent just like everything else.
Circles opens at your Will root. (half Will, rounded down).
Affiliations (purchased with RPs) add dice: +1D for a minor Affliation to an organization, +2D for a major affiliation. Doesn't matter about the power of the actual organization, this is only your committment to that organization.
These dice are added when making Cirlces tests within the Affiliation or in a Circle influenced by the organization.
Reputation within the organization and the perceived power of the organization (what that reputation means) also add dice to the Circles tests:
Scope of rep: Local (+.7D), Regional (+1.3D), and Country-wide (+2D)
Breadth of actual power:Minor (+.7D), Notable (+1.3D), and The Boss (+2D)
Total the bonus dice for your rep, round down. (needs adjustin, but that's good for the moment).
A regional, minor rep is worth +2D (.7+1.3=2D).
A local minor is worth 1D (.7 x2 rounds down to 1).
A Country-wide, Notable is worth 3D
Country-wide, Boss is worth 4D
These are bonus dice added to Circles tests when acting within your circles or a circle related to or influenced by the reputation.
Circles are simply determined by what lifepaths the player chose for his character. Interpretation of their precise scope is up to the group.
So a character with a Will of B4 has a starting Circle of B2. With Minor Affiliation and a Local Notable rep, he's got 4D to roll. This could apply to a town sheriff, a well-known local merchant, a reputable local priest, or even an infamous brigand or thug in the town.
whaddya think,
-L
I like it. Is Circles a skill that you have to buy with skill points, or is it something that all characters start with? I prefer the latter.
I like it. Is Circles a skill that you have to buy with skill points, or is it something that all characters start with? I prefer the latter.
All characters start with it at their base rating. If they want to enchance it pre-game, they can spend RPs on Affiliations and Reputation. If they want to enhance it in-game, they have to advance it like a normal skill.
One thing that deserves pointing out: Let's say you're playing an Elven Sword Singer, you've got just enough RPs for your sword, armor and horse. What about that affiliation to the Sword Singers Club? Well, in these rules you don't actually need that affiliation. The starting Circles rating takes care of basic affiliations -- you can still use your Sword Singer LP to get access to Sword Singeresque contacts.
Whereas a Sword Singer captain, who wanted to be able to call on a regiment every now and then, better enhance his affiliation and rep.
-L
Kublai
09-21-2004, 01:26 PM
What's up with the fractions of dice?
What's up with the fractions of dice?
I only want a max bonus of +4D, but I want to provide a way for player to combine the 6 aspects.
-L
Cool. The math on the fractions is dead easy, although I'd prefer if people didn't have to deal with it. Still, I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
I very much like the fact that you can take a lifepath now without having to buy an associated affiliation. But if you want to actually have some pull in the organization instead of being a low-level grunt, you've got to buy the affiliation.
So, low-level, landless noble with no family name or reputation to speak of? No affiliation. You get the shaft and get treated little better than an adventurer...good luck getting an audience with the local count, let alone a place at his table. Powerful family and a healthy reputation? People actually recognize you and accord you the respect you deserve.
Cool! 8)
Hey Abzu,
Here are some of the examples you asked about. Was this what you were looking for?
Examples:
Travis the Thief has been hired to get his hands on a letter in the keeping of Ferdinand, Factor for the Merchant House of Savin. He needs to get a plan of Ferdinand's House, and possibly some additional intelligence. He doesn't have any contacts connected to Ferdinand on his sheet, so he rolls his Circle skill to see if he can dredge up a contact who is. He rolls well, and remembers that a guy his cousin used to run with as a kid is one of the servants in the house. Now he just needs to bribe the servant to give him the information he needs.
Stewart the Smuggler is in a strange city that he's never visited before, scoping out the possibilities. He wants to find someone in the Harbormaster's office that is susceptible to bribes. He's at a real disadvantage, because he doesn't really know anyone here. So he takes some time to scout the wharf, seeing who comes in and who goes out (using his smuggler-wise, or whatever). He develops some likely prospects but wants to narrow down the list. He uses the successes on his smuggler-wise roll to bring down the Obstacle on his Circle roll (which is pretty big, because he doesn't really know anyone here). He gets a few successes and is able to confirm with one of the dock-side laborers that he's been spreading money to that Colin the Clerk is ready to look the other way in exchange for coin. Now to set up a meeting.
Campbell the Courtier wants an introduction to Marian the Marchioness, who is rumored to have the Prince's ear (he's trying to get his own man nominated to the War Cabinet). None of Campbell's contact's are friends of the Marchioness, so he rolls his Circle. He gets some successes and realizes that his manservant's brother-in-law is Marian's coachman. After a few pennies change hands, he knows the Marchioness' itinerary. Now to arrange an accidental meeting.
Hey.
Kind of.
These are good and useful, but let's look at the conditions for actual obstacle penalties.
Before you start spouting off, though you should read what I've written. Relationships and Circles are 90% done. And I LOVE them.
I'll post them after I reread them.
you should probably just call me, too.
-L
So... I wrote the chapter for the Relationships and Circles last week and did the first playtest for them tonight. Tacked them onto a longrunning character and the player seemed pleased as punch.
Anyway, I lloovvee these rules. L U V. Love.
First instance of use: Our Comptor, building his fortress in Orc-infested lands summons the force of his reputation and the channels of his brotherhood to put the word out for his former mercenary footman (aka bandit) to come and join him. Basically, trying to find someone who doesn't particularly want to be found -- especially by him.
Dice? 7D total -- B2 Circles, +2D Rep, +1D Affiliation, +1D Named character, +1D Help (from another character who knew the sought after character). Vs Ob 5: Uncommon profession, below station, time: soon. Result? Failed test. Couldn't find him, which was perfect. Who the hell does this comptor think he is anyway?
heh.
-L
Awesome Luke! Were there any other Circles tests? I'm really interested to see how people utilize them.
phredd
10-04-2004, 02:05 PM
These rules sound great!
And Kublai, I can think of some specific instances in Verakai where they would have helped, such as all the times Esbern was in cities that he'd been trading in for FIVE DECADES and no one knew him or recognized him.
Kublai
10-04-2004, 02:27 PM
I thought you took the Forgettable Face trait? No? My bad. :oops:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.