P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce] {LONG}

[Denakhan]

Well, I don't have the 'beta' rules to go by, but from what I have gathered,
I go with Wout on this one.  Here is my (somewhat ignorant of the 'new'
rules) reasoning:

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry D. Hols <crkdface at PCPARTNER.NET>
To: POWERS-AND-PERILS at DUTCGEO.CT.TUDELFT.NL
<POWERS-AND-PERILS at DUTCGEO.CT.TUDELFT.NL>
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce]


>Hallo,
>
>>The very things that attract me in P&P v1 are
>>1) the percentile scale attributes and skills, allowing a great
>>differentiation in characters
>
>        The problem with a percentile characteristic scale can best be
>summed up with a question:  what is the difference between a 43 and a 44?
>That's right, basically nothing.  There is widespread sentiment in the
>gaming community that such is not desirable.  Many people want to see that
>a difference in their numbers actually means something.

    I believe there IS a difference between a 43EL and 44EL in some skill.
Reason is that I have seen that one-percentile make a difference more than a
few times.
    If you want a compramise, why not use some kind of 'critical' thing like
Call of Cthulhu.  It uses % for it's skills --Im thinking combat skils
here--, and you get a critical if you roll under 10% of your skill.  So if
you have a gun skill of 44 for example, a roll of 4% or less is a crit. If
you have a 45, then you have a 5% for a crit.  Using something like this
would give you that '5-point difference' you talk about below.  Just a
thought.


>        So, for the characteristics to have much difference, there needs to
>be about five points between them.  Might as well divide them all by five
>and have twenty points on the scale.  I used a spread of 11 for humans, but
>that could change in response to playtesting.
>
>>2) the flexibility (lack of rules) allowing for example a fighter-magic
user
>>who can develop to a master in both fields over time
>
>        This can still be done, to large extent.  There is nothing to
>prevent a fighter from having some talent with magic.  There is nothing to
>prevent a magician from being good with a sword.  The use of development
>areas is simply to allow for greater differentiation of characters from the
>get go.

    I don't see this.  How can 'limiting' (making harder to develop?) skills
allow for a player to create more 'differentiating' characters?  Seems like
it would be the other way around.  By leaving the system completely
open-ended, P&P lets the player create any kind of character he wants with
ease.  It all balances out in the end, and it evens out anyway.  You can't
have a character who is great at everything, but you can have a character
who is great at 2 or 3 things (everything else would suck wang, though;)  I
guess I need to see the 'beta' rules to 'get it'.  (hint hint , Larry? :-)


>        See, without an emphasis on the core concept of the character,
>players tend to always hedge their bets, choosing skills that balance out
>their weak areas.

    In all my years of playing P&P, I have yet to really see this (well,
except for one player; ther's always one, isn't there?).  It has been my
experience that players of P&P (not many, I admit, but I think a lot of
those on this list might be this way too) tend to be more 'mature' about it.
P&P almost forces the player to come up with a concept for his character
*because* it doesn't have 'classes', 'development areas' or 'archtypes',
IMHO of course.
    As for 'balancing out' a character, what's wrong with that?  Most people
do this in real life. Take, for instance, a person with not-so-good eyesight
(like me).  Do I wander around squinting, or do I get contacts to balance
out my weak area? (well, actually, I do squint a lot...but thats besides the
point. i do have contacts).  I see nothing 'wrong' with this.  Hmm. Maybe
it's just me.


>  Hence, where the system allows for it, mages will have
>some strong weapon skill and the like.  This is not ruled out with the
>approach I have taken, but the player is directed away from this unless
>they are truly set on doing so.

    Hmmm. I thought this new system was suppose to make a players choice
less 'restrictive'?  Sounds like you are, effectively, limiting a players
ability to create any character he wants.  Mind you, i do not have the beta
rules, so this is all based on what I have read in this list (mostly).


>
>>3) the randomness in the character generation process
    <<<snip about randomness in character creation>>>
>        Hmmm.  Interesting.  The things that appealed to me the most about
>P&P were the setting, the difference between experience and expertise, and
>the flexibility in using a point system with skills.  The first thing to
>annoy me was the randomness of the character generation.  The people I
>managed to persuade to play the game with me had the same basic response.
>        I went to the bonus/penalty rating scale to allow for easy
>integration of non-human beings.  I've toyed with centering the scale on 10
>and using the characteristics more as targets in skill use, but that didn't
>seem to be as streamlined.

    Here is something to think about: If you and your group could ignore the
'randomness' and come up with something that suited everyone, don't you
think that others could do the same?
    I, too, have modified the character creation.  As a matter of fact, one
of the things about P&P that I was impressed with was its mature writing
style.  The 'style' constantly mentioned and hinted that the GM and players
were what made the game. It reinforced the GM and players 'obligation' to
change things they didn't like.
    It is also much easier to ignore a little number column to the left of a
bunch of abilities than it is to write in a little number column next to a
bunch of abilities...  As P&P reminds you, the rolls are there for quick and
dirty determinations; it is ultimatly up to the GM how or what happends.


<<<snip>>>
>        That said, I'm not opposed to some random element in the process.
>I know that random factors in the really important parts will keep many
>from playing the game.

    Well, I wouldn't say that.  I would re-word it to something like
"...parts will keep many poor GM's from playing the game."  ;-)  Any GM
worth his or her salt should be able to pencil out any 'random rolls' with
ease.  Yes, it does go both ways, but it is much easier to put an 'X'
through a column with 01 - 100 listed on it than it is to make w whole new
chart with the itmes and then figure out a good 'range' for each.  The
designer of the game would have a much better understanding of the
advantage/disadvantage of the item based on his knowledge of the system as a
whole anyway.


>>Now with P&P v2 I can create the same character over and over again, what
is
>>there to stop me from doing this? Now this can be a good thing, but as
said
>>it is the randomness in P&P v1 I like. To get to the point:
>
>        There is nothing to stop you from doing so, if that is what you
>want.  Well, there is nothing in the rules, nor should there be.  The
>entire point of playing the game is to have fun.  If you want to have fun
>playing the same character over and over, that is your prerogative.  It is
>not my intent to force the player to play something different each time,
>nor do I think it should be.

    To me this sounds like the mentality of the current 'New and True
Role-player' where the players are more important than the GM.  The 'players
come first' attitude.  As Mr.Horse (from Ren & Stimpy) would say, 'No Sir, I
don't like it.'  To me, I see a gaming groups 'importance' 50/50.  The
players are 50% important, and the GM is the other 50%.  In a nut shell, the
rules of a game should back up the GM first, and the players second.  Which
brings me to....


>        Now, if your playing group dislikes that, then the GM can rule out
>a clone character and force creation of something different.  That is where
>such control should be.  The system should allow for player control in
>having fun; the gaming group needs to take up issues such as clone
>characters.

    If the rules favor the players, the GM is in for more hassle than he
needs.  More to the point, the player(s) will simply say, "Well, the rules
don't say I HAVE to have a different character...so I just spend my points
in exactly the same way."  wherein the poor GM can do nothing other than
seem like a hard-ass because he is 'forcing' the player to create a
character that the player doesn't want to play.  If, however, the rules have
randomness (more than one or two rolls) in it, then the player can TRY to
create the same character, and the GM can get on with more important things.
Everyone understands that a character is a unique creation; not to be
treated like just some 'man' in a video game where wher you have unlimited
'lives'.


>        That said, why would anyone actually want to play the same basic
>character time after time?  I know there are people like this, but I don't
>understand the urge.  It sounds boring on the face of it, and I don't think
>enough people would do this that it needs to be a concern.

    But just the notion that the rules of the game would SUPPORT such a
player can be even more damaging than haveing someone in a gaming group
actually do it....


>
>>IMO the special events are not things to be chosen, but events the
character
>>and the player have no control over. That would suggest a random choice,
id
>>est a die roll.
>>Now I have been trying to get that 44-46 combination for years, no luck
yet,
>>but why would that randomness be troublesome?
>
>        Having rolled and received only bad things on the random events
>table, and having also rolled for really good things on that table, I have
>to wonder about the advisibility of having a set of random rolls have that
>much input on a character.

    One thing I think you are overlooking here, Larry.  The whole 'Special
Event' table is OPTIONAL and at the PLAYERS descression (assuming the GM
allows it).  I ALWAYS inform the player that he doesn't have to roll on it
and that there are good and bad things on it. As a house rule, I make
players re-roll any roll of 20 or under (ie, something always comes from a
roll...).  Many a P&P character has came away from this table MUCH more
three-dimentional.  Good *OR* bad.  As a matter of fact, some of my players
get a little dissapointed if there character has nothing but really good
things.  A little 'drawback' adds just as much, if not more, to a character
than a little 'advantage'.


>This one table can cast a pall over a character
>conception, making a character a poor play, or it can turn him into
>superman.  That range is too extreme for my taste.

    Then you don't have to use it.  However, to force other people who might
otherwise have liked to use it is, IMHO, wrong.  In effect, you are saying
to the readers "My way is better, so thats they way it is."  Without a
'random dice roll' next to it, the GM is back at the drawing table, writing
up the charts himself.


>
>>So, why the trouble of dubbing this game P&P v2 and getting AH's approval?

    <<<snip>>>

>        I'm not after their approval.  I'm wanting them to publish the
>game.  Resurrect the P&P name and support it
>        Here are the various priorities as I see them:
>
>        AH wants a quality product that will sell to a wide audience.

    No problem here.


>        I want a game that preserves the essential flavor of the P&P
>universe while updating the mechanics to a set that will appeal to more
>gamers.

    I am assuming that you get this info from the 50 question email you sent
us a year or so ago, right?


>        The OP&Pers (that is, you people) want a game that reflects many of
>the aspects that drew you to it in the first place.

    Could be just your wording (and probably is), but this sentance gave me
a queezy feeling in my stomache. Do you not concider yourself an "OP&P'er"?
I would think that most people on this list are OP&P'ers (any newcommers
here?  Like, just started playing in the last 5 years or so?).



>
>        These are not all mutually exclusive.  I can even see using a
>percentile system, although it would allow for character generation in five
>percent increments most likely.  I have a wide latitude available for
>achieving the first two prioities:  AH will be happy with a well-written
>system and probably isn't too particular about the mechanics.

    No, AH probably wouldn't care.  But I would bet that us "OP&P'ers" would
get kinda upset if the system was changed too much (and, to me, it sounds
like it is).  I don't think I need to mention (but I will...;-)) the "Great
Rift" of the 1st edition AD&D players and the 2nd edition AD&D players....
I hope this doesn't happen to P&P.  Last thing I want to see is a P&P
equivalent to AD&D2nd's "Complete Book of..."
                    *shudder*



>  I want to
>retain the flavor of the setting while adding some particular thrust to
>character creation.

    If I could have only ONE thing to keep 99% OP&P, it would be the
character creation system.

> The actual mechanics are the most malleable part of
>the equation, and those will be hashed out in playtesting.
>
>Larry
>

    Im open here....but I like the difference between Expertise and
Experience.

Thanks for all your time, guys.  Just speaking my mind here.  I was a bit
quiet when TSR was asking these things about what should be in 2nd edition
AD&D,  and man o-man o-man do I regret it.

Later all.
Paul L. Ming  (a.k.a. Denakhan the Arch-Mage).
DM of Shadowthorn