Is there a source or preview for the company rules?  It sounds interesting to me, but ORE isn't something I have to have, and I'm not quite in a position to buy the book blind.

I'm pretty sure there are a few reviews on RPG.net, if you check. In fact, I think there are like 3 or 4 of them, and they go into some detail about the Company. That's what originally convinced me to buy, actually.

Quote from: Mencelus;319734Now that's an interesting idea, though I had thought Greg Stolze kept the numbers capped on purpose - by putting them low, it forces players to go out and do crazy things (or at least roll some stuff) to some sort of bonus to resolves company actions.

To certain extent, I see his point - nothing should be a sure thing with stuff like this, especially on the company level. Looking at, well, any war in history, something somewhere flubs, or isn't enough, or goes badly, etc.

I just wanted more steps between "a minor crime gang" and "The Roman Empire." Plus the game uses d10's and that added an appropriate semantic to it.

Quote from: PaladinCA;319998I just wanted more steps between "a minor crime gang" and "The Roman Empire." Plus the game uses d10's and that added an appropriate semantic to it.

Personally, I think the system works best if you scale based on the sort of Company your campaign is centring around. If you're playing a game where the PCs are a bottom-of-the-pecking-order crime gang trying to make it on the mean streets of Freeport, then the top-tier stats are going to be for the major crime syndicates, and anyone more powerful than that is simply going to be off the scale: the PCs' Company is simply never going to inflict an organisational-level injury on the Empire during the course of the game, so it's not really worth modelling it.

Likewise, if you're playing a game where the players are trying to keep the Roman Empire on an even keel, then the bottom-tier stats are going to be for minor client states and towns, and anything smaller-scale than that simply isn't going to be a threat to the PCs' Company on an organisational level, so it's not worth modelling.

Quote from: Warthur;320010Personally, I think the system works best if you scale based on the sort of Company your campaign is centring around.

That is an interesting perspective. Have you had experience with the game system yet? I'm still in the reading and learning stage.

Quote from: PaladinCA;320012That is an interesting perspective. Have you had experience with the game system yet? I'm still in the reading and learning stage.

I ran an approximately year-long campaign under it, in which the players were the ruling council of a revolutionary government which had just taken over a nation bearing more than a mild resemblance to Ptolemaic Egypt, and they had to steer the country from being a war-torn wreck to a world power. The smallest Company I generated was I think a desert tribe (or was it the broken and bloodied remnant of the ousted government? I forget), the largest was a terrifying international demonic conspiracy.

(Of course, I should add that in the examples in my previous post it'd always be possible for a member of the minor street gang to assassinate the Emperor of Rome if he managed to get in the right place at the right time - it's just that that's not going to bring the institutions of Rome tumbling down. Unless, of course, the Empire was due for a civil war anyway - but then it'll be the warring factions tearing the joint apart, not the street gang.)

Warthur's interpretation about company scale is interesting but it implies a wider house ruling than just hand waving. For instance Greg explains that Followers rank 5 is roughly equivalent to Might rank 1. He even reverse the logic and states that Followers 5 is the biggest band of armed man one can command without starting a company. That's some lead in the idea of flexible scale.

I believe the logarithmic nature of company ranks explains better the need of so few steps between gangs and nations. Or what you may do is to cap what group size a company is able to model. For instance you wouldn't have the Roman Empire whose Might models the whole Roman army. Instead you would model legions who are often obeying contradictory orders anyway depending on the leading general's ambition. That means probably extra ruling to model the emerging behavior of a nation through its various components (not just armies).

Quote from: boulet;320091I believe the logarithmic nature of company ranks explains better the need of so few steps between gangs and nations. Or what you may do is to cap what group size a company is able to model. For instance you wouldn't have the Roman Empire whose Might models the whole Roman army. Instead you would model legions who are often obeying contradictory orders anyway depending on the leading general's ambition. That means probably extra ruling to model the emerging behavior of a nation through its various components (not just armies).

This is where I am now, especially since I'll soon have the chance to run this game actually. My players have chosen to be a mercenary company quietly serving some nation, and I'm wrestling now with how many points to give their Company. Too few and they'll feel impotent (or challenged, I never know with this group). So I haven't decided yet. Work for me, work for me.

I like Reign and will be using it in the near future for something. Not sure what, yet.