Revision of the game

[The Choinski Family]

>>With all this talk of trying to (illegally) revise the game, I thought
>>it might be valuable to hear a few testimonials and criticisms of it.
>>If we have a good idea what we do and don't like, revising and (gasp)
>>FIXING certain parts of the game would certainly go more smoothly.  I
>>suspect most of us will be attracted to the same portions...
>
> Yes organization is needed.

Greatly needed.  As much as having the magic in another book is nice, the
magic attributes should have been in book 1.

Query: If we do get this off the ground (Gnu P&P? "Perilous Adventures") we
need to go through the rules number by number and decide what needs to be
cleaned up.  Once that is done, THEN we can organize.  But I think we would
have to decide on content first.

>>Magic system:  This game has my favorite magic system (outside of Ars
>>Magica).  It is one of the few that allows for truly amazing power.  I
>>don't think there is anything here that I dislike.
>
> I agree its the best in the fantasy systems I run.
> Defiinition of the paths, apprentice programs might be more
> elaborate (ie for backgrounds).  But otherwise overall good.

I think It could be cleaned up a little. I would vote for determining some
underlying logical structure to develop spells (and thus determing BMC)
which the GM could use, but the players would have access to only through
the GM.  i.e. Some system where you could plug in Damge, rangem duratuion,
effect, etc with some basic modifiers, throw in a random fudge factor, and
get the BMC (along wit any "side effects").  This could be used to extend
the spell list.

Just a thought.

>>Skills:  This is a hodgepodge.  There are not enough and they are
>>poorly organized.  Throw out the "super" skills like forester and
>>miner and replace them with something simpler.  Characters end up
>>focusing around these every time.  Take a look at Harnmaster for an
>>example of a really good skill system (Harn is also a skill based
>>game.  They have organized the skills into professions, but they are
>>not classes.  I'd like to see something similar in P&P).
>
> I agree with these points.  More and maybe class or professional bonuses
> should be given (not a class system per se) but like a warrior would have
> some bonuses to combat skills.  But getting that to be not a class system
> (like D&D ) would be hard.  :)

I think the way to go is to reduce all the skills to a single system (not
the EL ves "or 80" -- pick one way and go with it.  I vote for EL,
personally, but then it fits my variant system. :)

Once we have a wide skill list, hopefully covering all the potential needs
of the players, create "packages" that purchase a set of skills at a
specified level, but provide a price break since some seemingly "worthless"
skills are added to round out the package.  So, one might take the
"Forester" package, getting Bow, Forest Survival, Elf Sidhe or Faerry Sidhe,
but also a bit of wood working or some other skill.  Total cost of the
package is the cost of all skills to the specified levels, minus 10-15%.

The skill costs would have to be normalized, however, and some rules
regarding getting skill from a package that you already have would need to
be made (but this could be cranked into a table: old skill vs new add = new
skill).

>>Priests:  I'm not sure how many people actually play with Priests in
>>P&P.  I find them interesting but too powerful for my tastes.  I
>>prefer over the top mages and ineffectual clergy.
>
>
> I've not had time to play them much as npcs much less pcs :)
> So have no comment really though they have their purpose
> in the game.

Never saw priests used at all in my games, mostly warriers and wizards.
Instead of being an afterthought they could be rolled into the magic system
and integrated better.

>>Combat:  Great but a little slow.  However, I'm not sure I would
>>change anything to speed thing up either.
>
> I would add new combat techniques like Martial Arts and the liek to the
> system.  Horse Archery rules and all that are great but maybe some more
> martial arts rules would be good.

Combat can be simplified to a degree, but how it is done depends on the way
characters are done.  As the system is now, we need the
"Deadly-severe-normal" system since many beasts ( and PC class charaacters)
have a lot of meat to chop through.

>>Creatures:  Not enough definition on each of the creatures or
>>differentiation(sp?) between creatures.  The originality is wonderful.
>> There are creatures you don't see in any other games, but the
>>creature statistics just seem to be all the same to me.  I'd like to
>>see different types of physical attacks from the monsters.
>
> I could agree with this but that's why they have that 8 page or whatever it
> is creature variation system just in cases like this :).

A greater variety of creatures, from non-myth sources would be good. We can
probably steal ideas from lots of other systems and modify to fit ours,
changing names and basics.  For example, take some basic "lizard" creature,
change it to a "canine", tweak the description to fit, tweak the damage to
reflect paws, etc.

>>Treasure: Wonderful
> Yep.  I don't think this part needs to be even changed :)
> The best treasure generation system I've seen so far.

Some thought on treasure on travellers needs to be thought out, it is a
little thin.  Also, some sort of "macro" treasure tables needs to be made.
I had many times where the players wanted to knock over a noble's mansion
(in an enemy land, of course).  How much loot would said noble have?  What
percentage portable?  How many soldiers?  Some guideline tables would be
good.

>>Special events: ditto.  Could be more though.
>
> Yeah maybe more tables depending on say a magical generation path and
> others...

More tables would be good, but change some of the cheesier tables.  Most of
my players wanted really bad stuff or really good stuff.  The "ho-hum"
events were snoozers.

We actually played that any roll of 33 or less could be rerolled...They
always wanted their full allotment of specials, good or bad.

>>Character creation:  Bulky, but I'm not sure what to change.
>
> The iniital increases section on the CPs and such tend to confuse alot of
> new players....as to which to use either cps or the table..etc..

This can be streamlined to a great degree, depending on what you want to
keep and what you want to chuck.

>>Perilous Lands:  I would change nothing here.  This is my favorite of
>>all fantasy worlds.  It is complex without too much detail.  Leaves
>>lots of room to mess around.  I love Burton's cultural variation chart
>>although I have changed and expanded it to my own taste (skills
>>outside of combat, less of a range for cultural height).  Definitely
>>could use more published adventures! (Can't see any hope here.)
>
> Yes PL is #1.  I would do more adventures or sites though more than the
> site book has for example.  I would give more leader info or language
> aspects to the world.  Economic system could be a boost (coinage, etc.).

The lands are definitly key, but whether or not (Hasbro?) wants to use them
is another matter.  regardless, changes will have to be made to reflect any
system changes we make.

    -- Burton