Remove this ad

Lead

Dec 30 15 3:59 PM

Tags : :

I'm curious about reactions to Leader Traits.  Some games have random dice rolls determining your force, and I've never understood that, from the point of view of someone who wants to play with specific figures.  The Leader Traits aren't quite as bad, but still really affect your force.  You determine your force, imagine your heroic leader, and then find out he's Cowardly.  And besides affecting how you play your representative on the table, you don't get any points to balance it out.  Of course, you could also get a bonus without paying for it.

Do you expect to use this rule straight out, or make some variation?  Any thought on point values, to choose it to describe your force, rather than a random roll?

Of course, with an abstraction, you could imagine some other problem than the name, that has the same effect.  So an illness or curse or wound or shame from previous battle or something may account for the way your leader acts.

I know, this is one of those "I haven't played yet, but here's a suggested change" posts.  But it doesn't feel like something I want to have my leader be subjected to.

Other than that, so far I've found impositions of behavior to be balanced out.  For instance, you can spend points to make your elite riders not do a wild charge.  I like abstractions, but don't like having some instances of an abstraction determine the abstraction to apply to other instances.  In general, I don't see many of those problems so far.

Thoughts?
andy
 
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Dec 30 15 4:37 PM

I'm in the same position i.e. haven't actually played a game yet, but I guess some of this comes down to probabilities - to get the "Unworthy" trait you have to roll three ones, and the traits most likely to be rolled statistically are less devastating. I might be tempted to reroll the traits at the high or low end of the table to avoid unbalancing things too much.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Dec 31 15 10:19 AM

I agree that it makes more extreme traits less probable. But though I'm thinking a bit about balance, I'm more concerned with the effects. Do I want my noble leader to be Brutal?

Some of these I could see choosing to define a leader. But that is where balance comes in. You'd have to give a bonus for a bad trait, and a cost for a good one.

andy

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

May 10 16 12:23 PM

Hey
As a newcomer to LR/DR, and a regular gamer of ganesha games, i think the leader 's traits system based on luck selection (via dice throwing) unfit for a fun game.
I'm an unlucky player who can throw the worse dice result regularly in one game, so i think it's better to pay points for a trait than to let the luck decide for me.
As we play with budget, why not give a point cost to get bonus to the throwing dice in the leader traits table.
Ex :
Add 1 to the result for 1 pt
+2 for 2 pts

In this way, if you pay, you can get a good trait but still in keeping the original luck system.

Cheers
Eric

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

May 10 16 3:10 PM

Another aspect of the game system

IMO this is just another aspect of the Rampant System.

It is obviously quite simple to just ignore it of course.

We have used it (except the 1 time we forgot), just because it was there and so easy to use.

I have rolled only one good trait out of 4-5 games (I can't remember) with our group.  Weaking comes to mind as does Inept I think it was called.  smiley: embarassed

Added another facet IMO.  If you are a born whinnner...errr I mean winner you can always take the risk and if you roll poorly use that as an excuse.  smiley: wink

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

May 11 16 4:10 PM

I'd be OK with your tweak about spending points to adjust the trait if you could choose not to adjust if you liked the leader trait you rolled better than the one you'd get if you used the +1. But I don't think the tweak would encourage me to use the rule.

I don't object to the roll because it might disadvantage me, but because it defines the character of, err, a character in a way that doesn't match whatever story I wanted to tell. I wouldn't want my hero to be Brutal.

But I do think these traits add some interest. Maybe something about paying points for being able to choose a trait, and then you have to roll the number or higher to see if you could use it. Sure, you wouldn't risk a bad trait, but you might spend points on something that doesn't help. Just a thought, not a formal proposal.

andy

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

May 12 16 1:38 AM

I agree to some degree, no one wants an inept leader and this might not fot with how you wish to envisage your leader.  However, this may also represent those unforseen events that affect a leader on the day; Napoleons haemorrhoids are felt by some to be the reason for his defeat at Waterloo.  If playing a campaign I would suggest you take what you are given, but if a battle is won the leader can roll again and, hopefully, acheive a better status.
Finally, you could make your own tables. These could be modified depending on the overall demenour of the leader; a table for the heroic leader, a separate table for an evil leader.  There could still be unwelcome results, but ones that are in keeping with the character you are creating.  The heroic leader may be increadibly stupid, or have personal bravery while being tactically indecisive  The evil leader might be ruthless but have a paranoid fear (let your imagination run wild here).

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

May 12 16 1:58 AM

thank you for your reply.

i'm used with the ganesha games system were special traits can be selected at will because you pay for them image

I ask that because, i think that a bad trait can penalize the player or his game. 
But it's not a matter for me as we can build our army, why not choose the trait of our leader in our budget.

Eric

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

May 12 16 3:10 AM

Don't forget the Leader traits tie in very well with the Boast system. So if you do roll badly  and create an Insipid or Sly Leader then you can then use the unusual Boasts such as “My own sword shall not be drawn." to your advantage. This adds colour to the games rather than everyone pretending to be Richard the Lion Heart of Edward (Hammer of the Scots) I. I quite enjoy playing a cowardly custard who refuses to attack and still manages to win the game.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

May 12 16 4:47 AM

Ubique Matt wrote:
After saying all that if you're starting out I'd initially ignore the Leader traits until you have a better understanding of the core rules, then introduce them as you get more experienced.

You are right Matt
We have choose to not use the traits in our first tests , and the boast system too.
We concentrate on the play first then add on the "fun" rules image

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

May 12 16 9:32 AM

nervisfr wrote:

i'm used with the ganesha games system were special traits can be selected at will because you pay for them image

I ask that because, i think that a bad trait can penalize the player or his game. 
But it's not a matter for me as we can build our army, why not choose the trait of our leader in our budget.
 

I'm also a fan of Ganesha Games, but I don't think there is enough point granularity in DR to give point values for the leader traits.  It is probably easier than having to give different values for all of them, because I'm sure a bunch are worth about the same as some above and some below.  That's why I think having a roll with odds of the trait taking effect may help.

The boasts are interesting, but I don't have those rules.  They are LR rules.

Alternate traits may be a good idea.  I don't have the rules with me at the moment, but I bet there are only a few I'd really object to if I only looked at the effect and ignored the name.  Replacing those with something of similar value, without necessarily the same effect, might give me a rule I want to use.

andy
 

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

May 13 16 10:45 AM

The rules suggest you replace with any traits that would fit your warband better, so I guess the easiest thing to do is try to replace the ones I find objectiionable with something with similar advantage / disadvantage.

But just for fun, here's a suggestion for choosing a trait for a character.
If you want to pick a leader trait for a character, decide how many points you want to spend and pick any you'd like.  Before the battle, roll 3d6.  If you get the number that chooses the trait or more, the trait applies for he battle.  You get one attempt for every point you spend.  If you fail, you've still spent the points.  If you get the trait before your last attempt, you've still spent all the points.

A combination of odds and points balances it.  It probably won't be worth trying for a high value trait.

Because it is once per game, it isn't too complicated.  It is in the spirit of the enchanted weapons, where you might feel the effect of the trait sometimes and might not others.  The odds adjust the effect over time.

andy
 

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

May 13 16 12:29 PM

andyskinner wrote:
The boasts are interesting, but I don't have those rules.  They are LR rules.

Alternate traits may be a good idea.  I don't have the rules with me at the moment, but I bet there are only a few I'd really object to if I only looked at the effect and ignored the name.  Replacing those with something of similar value, without necessarily the same effect, might give me a rule I want to use.

andy
 


Just to point out that the "Questing" rules are on pages 50-51 and are the same as LR as far as I can remember (I cannot seem to find my LR rules at the moment).

And 4 of the 16 Leader Traits are without a doubt purely negative in their game impact, none are overwelming IMHO, all are on the low side of the table making their odds much smaller than they may seem by a raw "4 out of 16" (you must roll less than a 7 on 3d6), and a roll of 7 is a bit of a trade off so could be considered a "no gain/loss" IMO....  and again, I have no issues with the table as written.

If they bother folks, my suggestion is to just leave them out entirely.  No harm, no foul.

Scott
  

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

May 13 16 1:10 PM

I remember the questing rules, thanks. I think I was confusing the boasting/questing word change with something else that I remember being told was left out of DR, but would work. Don't remember what that was.

I'd leave traits out first--that was already the plan. But I might do the above later. I like the traits to add some interest, and I think this suggestion, or something like it, would be fun and work well.

I'm just not fond of the random assignment.

andy

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

May 14 16 3:20 PM

I like the random assignment of leader traits but that also ties into my dislike of pointbuild. There's a lot of rolling in the game and this is just one of the rolls. In a case of getting a "bad" trait and the opponent a "good" trait it can make winning that game just more sweet. If I want a fair wargame I'll play chess (twice, once with white and once with black). I see it as a little throwback to the old (historical) wargames where the opponents has seperate victory condition and asymetric forces almost by default, it enforces the challenge of: "this is the situation, how are you going to make the best of it".

You can give a little vp bonus to the player with the lesser trait by dividing the higher score by the lower score and if the outcome is more than 1 give a +0.5 vp bonus and more  than 2 a +1 vp bonus.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Apr 4 17 10:27 PM

What we do, but only for the commanding figure: Using Commanding as the starting point we roll a d8 down three traits and up four traits from the Commanding spot. As I mentioned this is for the commander only, thusly allowing any subordinates ( for other forces or sub- commanders) this is for a campaign so we have more than one force on the campaign map.
Respectfully,
Gunny

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help