| Body |
Jeeeeoker
Haggler
3/23/2011 1:01:20 PM
PostID: 394778
|
This is something I posted on another board years ago. I was just thinking about it recently, and I'd like to get a wider range of opinions on it.
Back then, I was kicking around a system in my head for games that would put the players in a position of commanding armies or managing cities or principalities. It occurred to me that there weren't any mechanics that would encourage noble behaviour in the PCs. So I came up with the idea of tracking reputation, not just as a number, in the way that the 3rd edition Leadership feat tracks it, but as a set of numbers along different axes, kind of like the alignment system, but more dynamic and measurable, and more geared towards identifying what makes an ideal ruler. Here's what I jotted down, let me know what you people think:
Most hero characters will be responsible for commanding units of soldiers. Others, such as knights, have a noble title to maintain. In both cases, such characters need to be mindful of their reputation, as it'll determine the attitudes of their soldiers, allied heroes, and any civilians they might encounter. In this system, reputation serves as a replacement for alignment. Because it's not what you are on the inside, but what you do (and what people see you do) that defines you.
Reputation is divided into four axes:
1 - Competence vs. Impotence
2 - Bravery vs. Cowardice
3 - Vigilance vs. Indifference
4 - Justice vs. Tyranny
The first will improve as you win battles and campaigns, and decrease if you suffer defeats or fail to meet your strategic objectives. A high rank on this axis will get you promoted to more important positions, and you'll be given more responsibility over the outcome of wars. A low rank on this axis will cause your subordinates to doubt you, and so their morale will always be low. Low morale will cause them to break formation and retreat as soon as they start taking casualties or are faced with a superior force.
The second axis will improve when you engage superior enemies, and when you take upon yourself greater risks than you expect of your soldiers. It will decrease if you retreat too many times, let your allies defeat more enemies than you, or lead from the rear too many times. A high rank on this axis will boost the morale of your subordinates so that they're willing to follow you into any situation. A low rank will make them lose respect for you and start becoming insubordinate.
The third axis is a measure of how well you can protect the subjects under your control. You improve it by coming to the aid of villages that are under attack, and you decrease it if you allow civilians on your side to be harmed. A high rank on this axis will cause allied civilians to be more helpful, volunteering information, resources, and fresh recruits. A low rank will cause them to avoid helping you, and they may even covertly help your enemies, expecting to suffer less under someone else's rule.
The fourth axis improves when you enforce the rule of law (eg, rewarding heroism, punishing infractions, and putting criminals through due process). It decreases when you favour the rule of force instead (eg. showing favouritism, punishing people on a whim, delivering excessive punishment to criminals). A high rank will keep your soldiers and your subjects operating efficiently. An especially low rank can cause them to revolt, or look to neighbouring lords to save them from your tyranny.
At the moment, this is just conceptual, but the next step is to assign numeric values to actions, multiplied by their magnitude, to swing each of the four scales. Then, you quantify the morale and obedience of your followers and subjects, and draw up a chart for what types of things they'll start doing when those numbers get unusually high or low. A d% roll should determine the actual actions that take place, with the value for the morale/obedience augmenting the chances of the more severe reactions happening, and the percentage of your people who take that action, making the difference between a small group of malcontents or deserters you can execute, and a popular uprising or mutiny that leads to your death or exile (gg).
|
sammichweasel
Czar
3/23/2011 1:38:27 PM
PostID: 394784
|
Seems reasonable. There are, of course, extenuating circumstances for all of them, but if it's being run as a pseudo-RPG wit a GM controlling things to a degree, those can be accounted for and managed to.
|
Jeeeeoker
Haggler
3/23/2011 7:40:06 PM
PostID: 394824
|
Examples? Maybe I can write them in as exceptions.
|
sammichweasel
Czar
3/24/2011 3:09:32 PM
PostID: 394945
|
Things like tactical or pre-planned retreats (feints, I suppose) - they would possibly increase Indifference, but increase Competence, and not affect Bravery (unlike a normal retreat).
Also, depending on the attitude/alignment of the people you're dealing with, things might affect them differently. Showing mercy to a defeated enemy may increase Justice with one group, but increase Cowardice with another.
|
Jeeeeoker
Haggler
3/24/2011 3:58:10 PM
PostID: 394947
|
When it comes to tactical actions that mitigate risk, such as ordered retreats and fighting from the rear, I'll make it that a single action won't affect the Bravery/Cowardice index, but a pattern of such actions will start to reduce it, as people come to see the leader as overly cautious. The exception will be if allies or civilians are left vulnerable by the retreat.
Interesting point about culture skewing the scales. That would have to be setting-specific, and written up sort of like racial traits. Something like, "Viking culture responds to mercy with a -2 shift towards Impotence" (since it's a failure to kill your enemy, which shows weakness), "Mongol culture does not alter the Bravery scale when feigning retreats and fighting from behind your troops" (since those are the main tactics they rely on), "Roman Catholic culture responds to large body counts of enemy Catholics with a proportional shift towards Indifference, unless the leader squares it up with the church afterwards" (since you're failing to preserve the lives of fellow Christians, despite being at war with them), etc.
I can see how such a mechanic can then be extended to allow for political spin, where competing lords construct contextual "frames" in which a good action on one axis is perceived to be bad on another, or vice versa. But that'll have to be an optional add-on ruleset, as I want to avoid making games about political manipulation, and focus on actual leadership.
|
cromt
Destroyer of Worlds
3/24/2011 4:00:40 PM
PostID: 394948
|
Perhaps another way would be to define several schools of thought:
Heroic - Win or lose with "honour" (Approval from Warriors/Bards)
Pragmatic - Win or lose with optimal end results (Approval from Merchants/Leaders)
Dogmatic - Win or lose with no compromise (Approval from Religious/Leaders)
Poetic - Win or lose with a pleasing tale for the masses (Approval from Bards/Peasants)
... And describe each event after the fact by how it was won/lost.
The (Approval from X) stuff is to give the players an idea of who they are likely to impress with such actions. (it may even be specific factions rather than social classes)
Eg:
Sir. Gregor vs. the Froht-gren: A Great Heroic Victory (+5 Heroic)
Sir. Gregor vs. Lyon Town: A Minor Dogmatic, Un-heroic Victory (+1 Dogmatic, -1 Heroic)
Sir. Gregor vs. King Tendron's Champion: A Poetic, Pragmatic Loss (+2 Poetic, +2 Pragmatic)
Sir. Gregor vs. Count Rogun: A Poetic Victory (+2 Poetic)
King Henry (Pragmatic, Dogmatic): Not convinced of Sir. Gregor's capabilities (3)
Lord Randolf (Heroic, Dogmatic): Is respectful of Sir. Gregor (5)
Minstrel Hogar (Heroic, Poetic): Considers Sir. Gregor a source of inspiration (8)
This post last edited on 3/24/2011 4:02:48 PM
|
Jeeeeoker
Haggler
3/24/2011 4:31:36 PM
PostID: 394953
|
That's a good idea. Individuals would certainly see the same actions differently, and a lord would certainly have to choose sometimes between actions that gain the support of the people, actions that gain the support of peers, and actions that gain the support of various higher authorities, though the Dogmatic scale would be exclusive to particular dogmas, so that increasing favour with one authority would decrease favour with competing authorities (crown vs. church, for instance).
|
cromt
Destroyer of Worlds
3/24/2011 5:13:45 PM
PostID: 394956
|
I was thinking about it as sticking to principles, but you're right, most dogmatics don't appreciate other dogmas. :/
Heroics could be split up too, but I suggest trying to keep it as simple as possible. Righteous, Dutiful, Wrathful, etc, might work, but I tried to keep all the words in the same type (-ic).
Republic
Democratic
Autocratic
Capitalistic
...
but the more you make, the harder it is to keep track!
|
Jeeeeoker
Haggler
3/24/2011 5:55:07 PM
PostID: 394964
|
No, those original four are good, just that Dogmatic is an exception. You might call it Loyalty, instead. I would expect this to supplement the four axes I originally posted, so that my four govern what subordinates think of you, while your four govern what peers, enemies, and superiors think of you.
|
| page of 1 pages containing 9 items.Items per page: |