Court Battles

[Puckohue]

Suggestion:

Court Battles
Court battles can take place during any court activity except “Address Troops” and “Games”. Engaging in court battle must be stated in orders, with details on the specific subject and/or target of the battle. If no details are given, the GM will decide them.

A roll is made on the Battle result table using the Orate skill. The “siege” section of the “personal outcome table” is used, the Death Roll requirement being increased by 1 for each Noble Rank (+1 for Baron and +6 for Jarl). Bravery/poltroonery* can be used. If a battle result of 1 is achieved, the character’s Orate skill is increased by 1.

Unlike with normal battle, “death” involves a 1D6 die roll:

1: Poisoned and killed.
2: Subjected to an act of revenge. Roll on Death Roll table.
3-6: Gain a NiS as a result of all the negative gossip.

MiBs are the equivalent of positive gossip. Promotion gives a MiB instead. Loot is by way of gifts from supporters and admirers and is 1/10th of the amount listed.

MiBs earned through court battles count towards title rolls.

*If poltroonery is used, roll on Consequences of Poltroonery table. On a 6: Noble: lose any civilian appointment and 2 x poltroonery modification CPs every turn until mentioned in battlesong. Not noble: Immediately arrested, accused of treason.

All characters roll 1D6 for their initial Orate skill.

[Erik]

Can Orate skill be raised by practice?

[Ivarenna]

So this is effectively intrigue, with actions ranging from malicious gossip to attempted assassination?

Could there be traitors and Lunar spies present at court?

[grumbold99]

If you have to achieve a battle outcome of '1' to gain a skill increase, only those with a starting value of 6 will be able to earn an increase this way and it will get easier to increase once you reach 8. Perhaps 'promotion' should result in a step increase toward the next value rather than a BR of 1? And there be some way of training your courtly oratory, up to a certain threshold, say 5?

I'd also suggest possibly limiting it to 1 oration per month, or negative modifiers for multiple efforts, otherwise the number of MiD's earned per month could get completely out of control.

This lists the potential outcome for the person electing to make a speech in court, but not the outcome for the target(s). If you are going to denounce an individual in public, shouldn't it be a form of debate or contest? Or is this intended as merely an opportunity for individual self-promotion? Perhaps it should be the latter, since the (as yet unusued) crimes and punishments section has three different ways of bringing charges already and has much more of a role for others to get involved with offering testimony and spending influence.

It's a pretty high risk option for barons given that the second-best battle result for siege has a DR of 8. The Field ops table is a bit more consistent as the odds get better the more successful your speech, but perhaps keeping it risky is desirable, you are after all flirting with the displeasure of the king if you grandstand at court.

[Selena]

Grumbold's points are all well made and worth considering.

[Erik]

Also, should debates be allowed at Ring Assembly meetings? And should there be theological debates within the Temples?

[Puckohue]

This idea was born from Erik's participation in the Ring Assemblies. It would be nice to have a skill to roll on to see the outcome of the debates, and some rewards/penalties for good or bad results.

Maybe "Court Battles" is a bad name. Orate could also be used at feasts when reading a poem, or when leading a ceremony.

I agree that it should only be once per turn.

I agree that it should be trainable. Probably the temple of Issaries, God of Communication (also has no hostile cults).

I agree to remove the "raise skill on BR 1". It's probably enough with the general "raise skill 0.25 on a roll of 5-6", and the possibility of training the skill.

"...intended as merely an opportunity for individual self-promotion?" Well, a possibility would be to add the attack/praise mechanism of "leading a ceremony", but with the possibility of inversed result with a BR of 5-6.

[grumbold99]

It would be interesting if different kinds of activities could be undertaken depending on the type of court function. How elaborate it gets depends on whether it's intended that players can step completely away from the military and feel no financial or SP pressure to go to battle occasionally. It would also be fun if there are reasons to expend substantial sums of money now and again, since the accumulation of wealth rather snowballs once people shed off their debts to the moneylenders and start amassing a string of military successes due to high rank and regiment modifiers.

Ring Assemblies certainly sound like the sort of political function where you might compete with other members of the ring to have your policy preferred over theirs. MiB for winning the debate. NiS for significant failure, modest gain or loss of SPs for more mediocre outcomes, opportunity to spend money generously to influence the outcome? Accumulation of too many NiS may require resignation?

Full court affairs sound like the sort of places where the consequences can be more drastic, but large consequences should already be starting to crop up with nobles required to attend all court events and being noticed more and more likely with the MiB/2 modifier on 2d6 (assuming current total of MiB's rather than only the active ones counting). Perhaps an opportunity here to use your courtly skills to enhance/decrease your chance of being noticed and enhance or penalise the outcome should it occur?

[Puckohue]

How about "Court Performance" instead of "Court Battle"?

How about "Courtcraft" for the skill name?

It would be interesting if different kinds of activities could be undertaken depending on the type of court function.

Yes, that's the intention. Players may submit "details on the specific subject and/or target of the battle. If no details are given, the GM will decide them."

It would also be fun if there are reasons to expend substantial sums of money now and again

Added.

Here is a new version of the suggested rules: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tCP ... sp=sharing

I would really like to be able to add this already this turn.

[grumbold99]

It leaves a lot of the imaginative work to the player and GM to fill in around the bare bones, but if that works for you as GM then lets roll with it.

My own instinct would be for any performance targeting an NPC or player to their detriment, if they are in attendance at the event, be an opposed roll so they could defend themselves and potentially reflect the shame back upon the instigator.