 |
Exile Game Studio
www.exilegames.com
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HarrierPotter
Expedition Leader - 12 months
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Austin, TX
  
votes: 61
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
@ Nestor - I hear ya. There's definitely no one true game. OTOH, I've never found an existing game where I thought social class was handled all that well. Mostly that's because it's usually ignored (rightly) as not really being appropriate for proper genre emulation. Space: 1889 pretends, but doesn't really. Victoriana is okay, but I'm not really a big fan. I don't know what Imperial Age does, but it's D20Mod/True20 so nevermind. Also not familiar with Castle Falkenstein's system. So, it's mod a system, or go completely new.
@ madwabbit - Wow! I'm really not used to having a defender. Thanks, man.  I don't know 'bout rules cred though. I've my up my share of really lame stuff, and screw up the maths frequently enough.
It's true that it's quite easy to handwave a lot of this stuff, but one of the goals here is to actually create mechanics that reinforce the social structures. A good emulation encourages players to think more like the folk they're emulating. Adventurers have a tendency to go wherever and speak to whomever they like willy-nilly. In this case, when they start working with the social strictures in-world, well, then the rules are doing their job.*
As many have suggested, you could probably do a "lite" class system using a couple Talents and Flaws. What would folk have those Talents and Flaws do? Honest question. The Resources side of things I get.**
Many possible effects are covered with various Flaws, but how does one enforce the structures of social power and protocol sans Attributes?
* Hey, if it tells you anything, I'm currently reading a manga called Emma, which is a Victorian upstairs-downstairs romance.
** Though I don't really agree. It's entirely possible to have high station but not have much money or be well thought of. Or to be middle class and quite well off.
_________________
- Daniel Potter (MYTHIC ERAS)
LOCATION: "Back in Nagasaki / Where the fellas chew tabaccy / And the women wiki-waki-woo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Doc Nova
Expedition Leader - 12 months
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 314
Location: Indianapolis, IN
votes: 14
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HarrierPotter wrote: | As many have suggested, you could probably do a "lite" class system using a couple Talents and Flaws. What would folk have those Talents and Flaws do? Honest question. The Resources side of things I get.**
** Though I don't really agree. It's entirely possible to have high station but not have much money or be well thought of. Or to be middle class and quite well off. |
Well, Status does not necessarily grant Wealth and, likewise, Wealth does not necessarily grant Fame. Certainly, in the case of Status, Fame, and Rank, you could use your "bonus Resource" to take Wealth, or whatever, but it's not a requirement. That allows the variables mentioned without additional adjucation.
As to what Talents should do when dealing with social class...adding to "social" rolls would be the first step, but it could also be argued that the same bonus could be added to education-oriented skills (I did really like the Superior Education Talent...that one was neat). You also have the notion of adjusting Zero-level skills according to your social class. Perhaps Athletics isn't befitting to your high class socialite, so you pop that Zero-level to Diplomacy or Intimidation.
Maybe the Talent that should be examined for this would be Attractive, as social class is, essentially, a character's "social" appearance. It adds its bonus in a nebulous way, applying those added dice to appropriate situations (in this case, "with people", although that was argued in my game due to several more adult factors that can easily affect appearance...in fact, it was even argued that it could be used as a penalty for those that might be "jealous"). In this case, a "High Class" Talent could lend a +1 bonus to all "social" rolls, with that being intentionally ambiguous to allow varying mileage from game-to-game. Of course, additional levels would allow for "higher" classes.
Now, if the argument were taken to the "lite" varient where it is emmulated via Resources and Talents alone, then I would argue for allowing players a free Resource or two at character generation to help represent this. As it stands, with character generation as it is presented, creating a wealthy debutant is very expensive. In my campaign I granted a free zero level resource and then began providing resource-only experience to help represent the growth and ascent up the social ladder. That worked fantastically for those that were "working their way up", but a heftier starting pool would be necessary to create a "top rung" character from the get-go.
As for how this could all be represented without additional rules and attributes, the answer is deceptively simple: roleplay. If the character is a lower class, blue collar, working person and they run up to the Prince of Hamburg and begin acting like they were old chums, the GM should darn well have the Prince balk at the laborer's presence and demand his troop take them away. Of course, this also allows for wonderful RP moments and attempts to con and fake their station, which should be nothing but fun for those at the table.
Doc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HarrierPotter
Expedition Leader - 12 months
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Austin, TX
votes: 61
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oi! I'm a post behind. You're racing ahead of me, Doc!
| Doc Nova wrote: | | No offense was taken at all, HP, and thank you for the direct response. |
It is, of course, the polite thing to do.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Again, however, I'd argue that everything you need to emulate social classes is already present in the game without the added stat, but that is just my take on it. But then again, I have always been of the mind that the fewer mechanics you have to deal with in a game the better as they have a tendancy to restrict and slow game play with unnecessary rolls and rules. |
I would argue that there are a lot of rules to emulate the trappings and behavior of social class, but not the actual structure of a social system. There's nothing to enforce class behavior, other than the GM. I'm a medium-rules guy myself, though folks on this forum probably don't believe that. I like systems for their own sake, but a lot of the stuff I make up proceeds from the idea that it's easier to ignore rules that are already there, than it is to make something up on the spur of the moment. As for "unnecessary rolls," etc., perhaps, in which case they can be ignored, but a game using these rules is not really meant to be chock full of those things which usually eat time in other games, like lots of combat and other challenges. Not that they don't happen, they're just not as prevalent. Also, it's not like I'm suggesting you roll for every social interaction. It's like all rolls - only when it's important.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | ... even Gygax made some bad rule calls from time-to-time. Familiarity does not necessarily mean correct. |
And I certainly have.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | ... some further discussion as to how/what can be influenced and dictated by successful Precedence rolls would be handy. Is this a limited form of mundane "mind control", and if so, to what extent? Perhaps this could be further bolstered with a "Fan the Flames" Talent to incite (or quell) riots and the like? |
Okay, yeah, I need to expand the explanation of this in the text. It seemed obvious to me, of course!  Precedence isn't really about influence, it's about exerting power and putting people in their place. Folks aren't being convinced of something, just convinced that the "winner" runs the show. If you lose a Precendence contest as a PC, you can probably still do whatever it is you want ot do, but you won't be getting support from the crowd, and might well be left hung out to dry. Precedence isn't something you'd really do in a one-on-one situation, only when there are crowds involved. As far as the crowd is concerned, the winner of the roll is running the show. If it's a single person rolling agains the crowd, and the crowd wins, then mob rule it is! You could even have sides, each with a crowd of it's own. As for Talents, there is the one which boosts Precendence; I like the idea of Talents to be used specifically with crowds. I'm disappointed I didn't think of that!
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Further, I would challenge the "Allies must be of the same Class" and ask why? Why can't a wealthy/influential character have a "blue collar" buddy? |
Take a gander at the HEX description of Ally - "a close friend or family member" - sure, it's not hard and fast, but even in real life, aren't most if not all of your friends and family at the same general level? You can have that blue collar buddy, but I make 'em work harder at it by taking the ONE OF THE BOYS Talent first; alternately you could boost a Follower which are the same or lower Class than you anyway. There are many examples of the wealthy man-and-valet, or officer-and-batman in ficiton. If they were PC/NPC you could easily argue that the player spent the XP for that friend, including those needed to overcome the class barrier. 15 XP got Wooster a valet; 15 XP more got him Jeeves
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Similarly, why couldn't they have lower class followers? In fact, it could be argued that you should be able to get more lower class followers due to your wealth and influence. |
Followers may be any Class equal to or less than the PCs. Upper class folk do have an easier time getting more Followers, as represented by their XP "price break" on Resources.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Likewise, Rank should generally ignore Class. Perhaps not entirely (especially in a strict Victorian game), but military service has often been a means to "rise above one's station". |
Why should it ignore it? It's one of the keys to integrating Class from a GM side of things. As noted, each organization should have it's own Class strictures. There are of course, exceptions to every rule - they're called PCs, but at least you can't start beyond your class. I agree the military was a means of "rising above." I would also argue you pay XP to represent that in-game in some form. Perhaps a combination of Class and Status - you can't start beyond your Class, but you could advance further with Status.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Conversely, I would argue that Status and Wealth should be limited to Class, or, borrowing from the skill multiplier due to Class, should have their cost increased when going above your Class. Of course, certain concepts should cross this out, such as a low Class thief who has just made the strike of a lifetime. |
Considered that approach, but decided on having the set amount with Class-based multiplier, allowing for more variation within Classes. Maybe I'm just enamored of math It also automatically allows for that auto-adjust in income if you do actually change your Class, representing the the payoff for lots of groundwork, or the loss of oppotunities depending on which way you go. I would handle the "strike of a lifetime" as I would in regular HEX, it would be a specific in-game reward that perhaps you could convert to permanent Wealth at some level (kind of like the Pocket Change sidebar).
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Or what about the lower class character that "fakes" it for enrollment into an organization? |
If it was a long term commitment, then taking the ONE OF THE LADS and/or AFFABLE Talents is probably a good idea. If there's a one-off meeting, you might be able to hande it through a Bluster roll, but also possibly disguise and/or acting rolls, which should probably also be penalized for Class due to behavioral issues. Of course, getting in is one thing, staying in is another, whether it's due to poverty (can't pay tuition/dues), or having to pass an occassional roll to keep up the act.
_________________
- Daniel Potter (MYTHIC ERAS)
LOCATION: "Back in Nagasaki / Where the fellas chew tabaccy / And the women wiki-waki-woo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HarrierPotter
Expedition Leader - 12 months
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Austin, TX
votes: 61
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doc Nova wrote: | | As to what Talents should do when dealing with social class...adding to "social" rolls would be the first step, but it could also be argued that the same bonus could be added to education-oriented skills (I did really like the Superior Education Talent...that one was neat). You also have the notion of adjusting Zero-level skills according to your social class. Perhaps Athletics isn't befitting to your high class socialite, so you pop that Zero-level to Diplomacy or Intimidation. |
Oddly, before my previous post, I put in a short advice section for modifying other aspects of the game like Archetypes, Motivations, and Skills (including 0-level).
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Maybe the Talent that should be examined for this would be Attractive, as social class is, essentially, a character's "social" appearance. It adds its bonus in a nebulous way ... In this case, a "High Class" Talent could lend a +1 bonus to all "social" rolls, with that being intentionally ambiguous to allow varying mileage from game-to-game. Of course, additional levels would allow for "higher" classes. |
And here's the thing with Talents, though the effort is appreciated. Talents are always positive, It doesn't allow for the fact that being "higher" up the chain doesn't mean people always react to you more positively, frequently quite the opposite. Cross-class tension is a staple of fiction. This is one of the reasons I chose to go the Attribute with special rules route - you get Class penalties, but it can be offset with Status (representating respect of the community).
| Doc Nova wrote: | | Now, if the argument were taken to the "lite" varient where it is emmulated via Resources and Talents alone, then I would argue for allowing players a free Resource or two at character generation to help represent this. As it stands, with character generation as it is presented, creating a wealthy debutant is very expensive. In my campaign I granted a free zero level resource and then began providing resource-only experience to help represent the growth and ascent up the social ladder. That worked fantastically for those that were "working their way up", but a heftier starting pool would be necessary to create a "top rung" character from the get-go. |
Resources: Note that I do grant an additional Resource up front, which much be an Ally, Contact, Follower, or Mentor because I wanted to focus on the social side of things, but I might be convinced to just let it be any old Resource. Resource-specific XP is interesting. Hmmmm....
Anyway, if using just Resources, creating a wealthy debutante is pretty much impossible using standard rules or even a couple extra Resources. You could grant a whole lotta Resources and Talents up front for everyone, which might work for some games, but could also wind up with very powerful characters, which isn't really the goal. This is the primary reason I decided to use an Attribute.
| Doc Nova wrote: | | As for how this could all be represented without additional rules and attributes, the answer is deceptively simple: roleplay. If the character is a lower class, blue collar, working person and they run up to the Prince of Hamburg and begin acting like they were old chums, the GM should darn well have the Prince balk at the laborer's presence and demand his troop take them away... |
And yes, we can always roleplay, though I don't think the Prince of Hamburg example is very good, as it's completely outside what would be normal behavior in a class-society. The prince could call his troops, might pull his sword, or might find himself amused. Until the player does something that demands some sort of result (roll), it's all in the GMs' hands anyway. Nothing in what I've written prevents the Prince of Hamburg scenario, but they might help determine what happens when it comes time to talk you're way out of being clapped in irons. Rules are more for the less obvious situations, or for the GM who likes to see what the dice say and run with it.
In any case, I appreciate the discussion!
_________________
- Daniel Potter (MYTHIC ERAS)
LOCATION: "Back in Nagasaki / Where the fellas chew tabaccy / And the women wiki-waki-woo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HarrierPotter
Expedition Leader - 12 months
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Austin, TX
votes: 61
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some changes/additions:
- Bluster rolls: Difficutly equals the greater of either the difference in Class ratings OR your opponent's Intelligence. That modifying the dice pool for the difference in Intelligence is gone too; that was stupid
- Added a SNOOKER Talent that grants bonus to Con when using it agaisnt someone with a higher Class.
- Added a very small little section on tweaking character traits specifically for late 19th century Britain.
- tweaks to the Rank section. For Military you can't start higher Rank than Class, but can increase to Class + Status levels.
- working on better explanation for Precendence.
_________________
- Daniel Potter (MYTHIC ERAS)
LOCATION: "Back in Nagasaki / Where the fellas chew tabaccy / And the women wiki-waki-woo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Blocked registrations / posts: 93765 / 0
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
