04-29-2021, 11:42 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
I think your problem lies in trying to assimilate your preferred playing style, which appears to be combat-heavy and socially light, with the traditional role of knights, which is both combat-heavy and socially heavy. When you can imagine combat-heavy and socially light peasants or wizards, the knight doesn't seem to fit into your paradigm.
So do one of two things: either jettison the idea of a courtly knight in your game, or just don't use those traits that have no impact on your game. If your adventures don't deal with things like high-status people socially interacting with low-status people, if they don't deal with courtly intrigue or funding arms, don't use those traits, and the knight can invest more points into things like weapon skills and combat advantages. In other words, I think you're trying to cram someone else's concept of a knight into your concept of an adventure. I don't, on the other hand, think your idea of what is common in a game and what isn't is necessarily representative of the majority. I think you'll find a lot of people care about the social attributes of the knight. |
04-29-2021, 11:58 AM | #22 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
This isn't really original thinking. It's more like extending Status as a Reaction Modifier (p. B29) to Influence rolls and then riffing on it a bit. It's basically treating Status as geographically and culturally specific Charisma.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
04-29-2021, 12:11 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Snoopy's basement
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
Also, for lower point nobles you could minimize the panoply of things they 'should' have by limiting them territorially or situationally (Legal Enforcement or Immunity advantages might be formal, but not viable in every practicality). Or for non-core skills, acknowledge that they might have formal exposure to them but not be very good at them (maybe using Dabbler instead of full Skill levels). Another thing would be to make sure that everyone from every social stratum has to buy the things the might realistically have, like Guild memberships, Streetwise, Contacts, Social Chameleon, and 'everyman' skills that nobles might actually never have been forced to pick up. |
|
04-29-2021, 12:16 PM | #24 | ||
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
Also, I thought the difference beween the knight and the landed noble/courtier the proficiency, and not a complete have/have not? I mean, the knight might have these skills at 10-11 (Average - most non-job skills for ordinary folks) while the landed noble would have them at 12-13 (Competent - most job skills for ordinary folks). Quote:
I agree with you that knights are both combat-heavy and social-heavy. The problem is that heavy and light is defined by the rest of the party/possibility. If a non-noble character invests their point in combat related traits, that's what "combat heavy" means in this situation. A knightly character, to also be combat-heavy would need o invest as many points as they did, which leaves little point to also be social-heavy, like the mage that become expert diplomat for 1-4 points thanks to their already high IQ. The knight can at best be combat-light and social-light, which makes them ineffective in any challenge tailored for the skills of the non-noble fighter and mage-diplomat. The solution seems to be to either give more points to the knight, or to force the other characters to spend points elsewhere, preventing them from specializing too much. |
||
04-29-2021, 12:33 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
No, not especially. Squires didn't spend a lot of time on dancing and etiquette lessons. The comportment training they got would be mostly subsumed in having greater than 0 status. They were soldiers and they were trained as soldiers. They didn't usually have higher social skills than a commoner (apart from once again, the impact of relative social status), they had different social skills. |
|
04-29-2021, 12:33 PM | #26 | |||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|||
04-29-2021, 12:37 PM | #27 | ||
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
I just noticed I wrote "ineffective" in the title instead of "inefficient", which is what I meant. Maybe that's causing some minsunderstanding?
I didn't mean to say social traits are less valuable than combat ones, but that a knight needs both and given the same points budget branching out results in less impressive results than if one had specialized. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-29-2021, 12:49 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Apr 2019
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
I don't know if anyone's pointed this out or not, but Status, as far as I can tell, never appears in Dungeon Fantasy or DFRPG. Wealthy, according to Basic, gives one level of Status for free. I think a regular knight is Status 1.
Status 2 is an important knight. Status 3 is a Knight Commander or Baron. Status 4 is a Viscount or Earl. Status 5 is an Earl or Marquess. Status 6 is a Marquess or Duke. Status 7 is Dukes and Princes, maybe Kings. Status 8 is Kings and Emperors. And I like Kromm's suggestion of having these Statuses affect rolls for anyone who belongs in the hierarchy. I thought that was just RAW, but maybe not? To be a regular, basic knight seems like it would just cost 20 CP for Wealthy (with Status 1 for free) - and then maybe a few quirk points spent on the arms and horses and maybe a squire for an ally. That 20 CP - even in a DF game - gets a lot back in town. |
04-29-2021, 12:55 PM | #29 | ||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
Quote:
Storming small fortifications is a weak point for the knight. Saving the village from the orcs feels like a strong situation though. Either the orcs are forming up into a formation the knight can out flank and out maneuver, or they're scattered throughout the huts pillaging. I don't imagine the average village as a bad place for a horse, as long as it doesn't go inside the one and two room huts scattered at least 20 feet away from each other. If all of the orcs hole up in a single hut... you've won half the battle. Quote:
That said, knights are usually best employed as part of teams that all all mounted: If you have to leave the team to attack first or to pull away and regain your advantage, you loose the advantage of teamwork. Quote:
One thing I do in almost all of my games is to give 10 points that are earmarked for "flavor skills". I present these as "Bonus" points, rather than part of the budget, so players feel that I'm giving something rather than taking things away. So 260 or 110 point "final budgets" are common. I find that these points give a big boost to making the sort of skills realistic and rounded characters have viable.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
||||
04-29-2021, 12:57 PM | #30 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Well, the professional skill(s) of knights depend a lot on what knights, where, and when. We tend to have a soft-focus, idealized view of the social role. A lot of them would be about as good or bad at actual fighting, tactics, and social leadership as a street gang member, corrupt city councilor, bureaucrat, or rich kid living off their parents today. There were even pacifist orders. Almost the only consistent thread would be Status 1-2.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
Tags |
character design, knight |
|
|