Revision of the game

[Scott Adams]

At 11:21 AM 5/15/99 +0000, you wrote:
>>>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
>Greatly needed.  As much as having the magic in another book is nice, the
>magic attributes should have been in book 1.

Yes would have helped a bit :)

>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.

Yes a general outline is always doine in projects like this rule setups #s
and categories are done before hand and you just fill in the blanks as you
go along.  Whoever is spear heading this needs to do a outline first.

>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.

I'm not sure where you are going with this but if I get the jist I'd
keep the system as it is now.  Thought creating a new MU is a bit tough
compared to other systems usually only allowing you to specialize in one or
two spells ... so maybe more points for that should be upped.

>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. :)

I'd work with either system :) or both :)

>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

So sorta like a class system?  That could work.

>"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).

Yeah we could iron out such a system.

>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.

Same here..but only because they were not normal ie I just
got those rules like 2 years ago :).  I do want to see more of them
in my games and would welcome on in the PBEM game :)
I need to get used to the priest rules :)

>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.

So your saying keep the basic system?

>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.

Yes.  RQ...tons of other fantasy system has good creature info that pnp
does not.

>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.

All of that is in the core rules now or at least it has been for me :)

>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.

Yeah gee how many times can a player get a roll of 100 :)

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

Yes but GMs can handle it most players can not ...

>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.

Well RQ might get PL data..so that might suck :<