P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce]

[Wout Broere]

>        I think we're speaking crossways here.  I'm not developing a game
>loosely based on P&P.  I want to use the P&P universe--the gods, beasts,
>and beings of P&P.  I cannot use those if I market a game to another
>company.  (Well, if AH decides not to pursue a new edition, then I might be
>able to deal for the rights....)

>        This will never happen.  The matter is quite simple:  P&P died
>because of poor sales.  The same set of rules will not sell any better now,
>and would probably do worse on the market.  They will not be reissued.  A
>new set of rules is the only thing that can return P&P to the market.

I'm not too sure about that, but AH will probably have formed a better and
at least in this case more decisive opinion about that. I have good hopes
for P&P v1. IMO it has a basically sound set of mechanics. All the bickering
we have had in our players group, and most of the discussions on the net
recently, concerns details, not the basic system. Of course there are
possibilities for improvement. It will probably bil down to the fact that
for each kind of system there is a group of players, but the number of them
will decide whether or not there is really a market. Problem remains to find
out beforehand what people want in a system.

>fact that there are so few players of the game should speak to the
>proclivities of the marketplace--there are many more people who don't find
>that to be a really good thing.

The number of dead games (with a very small live audience) is (most
probably) greater than the number of still viable games. AD&D always seems
to do very well, but that box of Rolemaster has had a place on the shelves
for years at the local games store. Mouth to mouth advertising plays a very
important part in this of course.

>many more low-mechanics systems available, though, because many more
>players want them.  They wouldn't be appearing if there weren't a demand
>for them.
>        This is where you part from the masses of players.  Most want

OK, but if there are no high-mechanics systems available, then the choice a
new player has is a low-mech game or no game. There is a point in it of
course that most beginning players will choose a low-mech game and stick
with it.

I wonder. We started with 'Het oog des Meesters', a Dutch translation of the
german game 'Das Schwarze Auge', a relatively low-mech game. Only after 1
year and a half or so of playing that game as our major game we switched to
P&P, and that stayed our main game after that. How many of the p&p players
out there started with another system. And was that a low-mech or high-mech
system?
Question 51 for the questionnaire.

Surely I differ from the masses, but so do other players. How mnay and are
the an economically large enough group? That remains a question for AH.

>        And what I have written doesn't force the issue.  A social emphasis
>favors character interaction with the game setting; it doesn't dictate what
>pursuits are available.  A physical emphasis means the character is more
>self-contained and doesn't dictate pursuits.  The magical emphasis leads to
>the most powerful of mages, but doesn't preclude any other pursuits.  It is
>just as possible to develop a mage, however, with a physical emphasis as it
>is with a magical emphasis.
>        I think the perception you have of the system I started are skewed
>by some bad assumptions.  I don't force archetypes, pursuits, etc. on any
>character.  I guide players into choices about what type of character they
>want to play, and those choices concentrate on developing character--that
>is, focusing on the core of the character.  I am not interested in turning
>P&P into a class-based system.
>        There is nothing in the system I have devised that limits a
>character to being only a mage or only a warrior.  He can be both and he
>can be very good at both.  The greatness in a variety of areas comes
>through much play and development, however, and does not occur in character
>creation.  I think this is reasonable and good.

I do see there is no enforcement of archetypes in the rules as is in D&D or
such, but it seems to me that on a more global level there is a choice made
between physical and magical emphasis.
Well, lets see if they are just bad assumptions. My reasoning went something
like this:

A mage. 10 points for magical. Now I use 8 points in physical and 6 in
social to work around any drawbacks I may see. Magic will work out fine, as
I have many points to spend there.(*) Socially I have been secluded and will
need quite some roleplaying to get back. Being a mage I have some status, so
at least 3 points to get a status level 3, leaves 1 point each for the other
3 categories.

Leaves the part that troubles me, physical: 8 points to spend. I need some
experience and expertise. It seems to me (assumption) that Keen abilities
cannot be gained during play, so I need some points there, and a 2/2/2/2
distribution is not too weird. But OK I shift it somewhat and use 3 points
for characteristics. That is 1.6 point per characteristics, or a 1 or 2 for
ability in most chars. As they may not be raised more than 2 points during
play in P&P v2, they will be 3 or 4 max, which is better than average, but
not exceptional, even more so compared with the plusses and minusses for
other races, which can be +/-5 to basic ability.

So by spreading out my points, there is no way I see that the character
excells in all fields. With p&p v1 this is a possibility, maybe a small one,
but still. Tell me is this misinterpretation somewhere, or did I miss a key
fact in the rules?

>Powers & Perils: the 2nd Edition.  I refer to P&P as OP&P because it is the
>Original P&P.  For my purposes, it works.  P&P1 would work, also, I guess,
>but I got used to using OD&D for the original D&D game, and that stuck with
>me.
This is a mea culpa. I interpreted OP&P as Old P&P. Sorry for that. IMO it
is not old (as in almost dead or derelict), but wise and ancient. :)

>        First, the "Conan the Librarian" comment seemed to be an
>underhanded slam and has no place in a civilized discussion.  Nothing I
>have written deserves such treatment.
As already pointed out by Scott this is intended as game characterization,
not as slam. I love this style of play and P&P is extremely suited for it.

>        On a personal level, I've played Warhammer FRP and we did have an
>action-oriented game.  Fate Points were a godsend.
You never had enough in the end it seemed :) When playing a true h&s style,
you won't live for long, as a few goblins are way too deadly

>slash, then always develop characters with a Primary Physical emphasis.
>This does not preclude mages or anything else.  This also reflects the
>original process the closest.  No need to have strong social development,
>or the additional minor magic abilities.  Concentrate on the
>characteristics, skills, and experience of the character just like you do
>now.

We seem of different opinion here. A good overal character needs social,
magical as well as physical abilities.

The mechanics are what attracts me to P&P in the first place, even more than
the background, but the combination is nearly excellent. A lot of the look
and feel is in the game mechanics and the process of character creation and
combat (phys. or magic) are two pieces of a game where those mechanics
become most obvious. So discussing the process of character generation is in
part discussing the look and feel of the entire game. It is in the look and
feel part that part of my apprehensions lie, the rules for p&p v2 impress on
me a different look and feel.  Among others:

1) The characters have some Keen abilities, Familiarities and Knacks, which
seem new concepts in the game. Or are they differentations of the special
events/special abilities from p&p v1? From the post on the special events
table it seems not to be the case, but I'm not certain.

2) The names of dwarfs, elves and faerries have been changed. Now I can see
who is who from the descriptions, but why the change of names?

3) The lack of slaves and kings in the character generation process.

Now changing the game mechanics, and what you have done so far seems to me
to lead to even radically changing the game mechanics, while keeping the
flavour of the game is a difficult task. As you have both supporters as
fierce critics, you can't have done too badly. It is just I am one of the
critics. And I want to be heard, heard loudly. I am reasonably satisfied
with the game as is, and questions like "What do you want to see changed in
the game?" atract mostly comments from people who are somehow unsatisfied
with some aspect of the game.
I go along with Paul Ming as he doesn't want to see P&P go the AD&D way.

Ft