P&Pv2, design questions (to Richard)

[Albert Sales]

   We used a similar house rule. We assigned a
set number of multipliers then added 1d10 to
(Mult +1)x2 to get a native range of 4-20 that
very closely represented the character that our
players wanted. It also helped keep the game
balanced. We did not allow this with con and
appearance. They were as rolled.

--- Sylverrs_ dragon <abnaric at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> The thought, right or wrong, was that Con and
> Ap were things a person was
> born with and could not alter. Thus the fixed
> multiplier.
> The rationale with the other eight stats is
> allowing the player to assign
> multipliers allowed him to make the character
> the person he wanted it to be
> within the limits of its native ability and
> other factors that I felt have
> an influence.
> The result makes creating a character more
> complex but I feel it also makes
> the resulting person more unique and important
> to the player.
>
>
> >From: "Choinski, Burton"
> <Burton.Choinski at MATRIXONE.COM>
> >Reply-To: Powers and Perils Fantasy
> Roleplaying Game Mailing List
> ><POWERS-AND-PERILS at GEO.CITG.TUDELFT.NL>
> >To: POWERS-AND-PERILS at GEO.CITG.TUDELFT.NL
> >Subject: P&Pv2, design questions (to Richard)
> >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:40:17 -0500
> >
> >I was playing around with some ideas for v2 as
> proposals to the list, or as
> >a simpler "house version".  I was just
> tinkering with the very start of
> >things, characteristics.
> >
> >Richard, what was the reasoning behind
> allowing players to alter the native
> >ability modifier for the existing 8
> characteristics, but not Con and App?
> >What was the reasoning behind making those two
> "special" (besides the
> >obvious mechanic in that you have multipliers
> that you can roll that you
> >cannot allocate).
> >
> >WHy wasn't the system simply streamlined such
> that things were normalized
> >for the standard "x1 to x4" range?  Or why not
> Emp as well?  Perhaps they
> >all should use a rolled table (which will
> differentiate the races more),
> >and
> >the players simply "bid" for their rolls by
> adding native ability points.
> >when all are used up you are stuck with what
> you roll.
> >
> >Example: Joe has 21 Native ability points.  He
> really wants to have a
> >decent
> >S and St, and so bids 5 each (the max) for
> each of those rolls.  He also
> >wants a good con and bids 5 into that.  The
> remaining 6 points are bid as 2
> >into A, 2 into D and 1 each into W and I.
> >
> >Looking at the human table, he rolls a d10 for
> each characteristic, adding
> >any bid amount, the result being his native
> aptituce multiplier.  The table
> >could go a little beyond 10 (perhaps 11-14 for
> a tad more, and 15 for 1
> >level higher).  Each person would get the same
> number of bidding points
> >(don't roll the 2d6+14), and go from there.
> >
> >
> >Are there plans to stick with the standard 10,
> or will there be some
> >changes
> >there? (more, fewer, or different)
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> >Burton Choinski
> >Principal Software Engineer, Quality
> Engineering
> >email: burton.choinski at matrixone.com
> >
> >phone: 978-589-4089
> >fax:      978-589-5903
> >
> >MatrixOne, Inc.
> >210 Littleton Rd.
> >Westford, Ma 01886
> >www.matrixone.com
> >
> >The First in Intelligent Collaborative
> Commerce
> >----------------------------------------
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN
> Offers!
>
http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
>