Phoenix

[Alex Koponen]

I agree with Kurgan, except that I also really like the Perilous Lands
('Sea of Tears' is a great name btw).

  There are a lot of RPGs out there. Many have decent combat systems, some
comparable in quality to P&Ps. Indeed P&P's combat system is not without
flaws. However, I have yet to find a magic system that I like better than
P&P's magic system. GURPS' magic system comes closest but it doesn't ring
as true to what I imagine magic to be as P&P's magic system does.
  Probably P&P's biggest flaw in the magic system is the extreme power it
gives with relatively little risk.

          Alex Koponen


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:01:35 -0600, Kurgan <Kurgan at FASTMAIL.FM> wrote:
>Sd> Appreciate the kind words. Don't know if I agree that the magic system
sucks
>Sd> but I do admit it needs streamlining, expansion and some major
revisions.
>Sd> Will definitely concentrate a lot of effort in that area when the time
comes
>Sd> to seriously tackle the project. Any suggestions would be considered
>Sd> appreciatively.
>
>    I was looking back over some of the older posts, and spotted one I
>    wanted to comment on. Better late than never. :)
>
>    I don't think the magic system sucks at all. I've always said the
>    one drawback to P&P was the original editing job, which was
>    practically non-existent. The running joke for the last 20 years
>    has been, "Two weeks and a bottle of extra-strength Tylenol, and
>    you'll fall in love with P&P." Quality, sadly enough, has never
>    been a good selling point for entertainment properties, be they tv
>    shows, games, whatever. P&P will *never* be massively popular to
>    the masses because, by its very nature of quality and not pandering,
>    it will only appeal to those that appreciate such depth. Any
>    attempts to "dumb down" the game will ruin it, and you might as
>    well, at that point, just slap a disgusting d20 banner on it.
>    Remember, you don't find caviar sitting on the corner market's
>    shelves or on most people's dinner tables. Nevertheless, it always
>    makes people think of quality.
>
>    The skill max formulas are the biggest thing that needs
>    streamlining. I love the idea of having maximums that are based on
>    the individual character. That's great, and I wouldn't want to see
>    skill maxs removed from the game. However, having three different
>    formal types, and each based on a different mathematical equation,
>    tends to really confuse things. When AH asked me to do the
>    rewrite, that was the first thing I'd planned on tackling and
>    streamlining, and I still think it's where someone should start if
>    the game ever sees the light of day under a second edition.
>
>    I'd like to comment on some of the unique high points of the game,
>    that make it great. These things should never be removed:
>
>    No "classes" or "levels." My main character, when asked what he
>    is, always replies, "art dealer." :)
>
>    Skills that each have their own experience. Seeing someone kill a
>    monster and suddenly become a better lockpick was always a
>    ludicrous idea, and P&P treats skills logically and avoids such
>    stupidity.
>
>    Spells. Individual colleges, individual expertise, spell branches.
>    These were fantastic ideas. A little bit of universal expertise
>    from general mana manipulation, but each spell still relies
>    primarily on skill with that spell, or spell grouping (eg. fire
>    related spells), was a masterstroke. How many times have we seen
>    someone go up a level in other games, and instantly they can toss
>    around spells they've never seen before? It's great to see a
>    system where, if all someone does is toss fireballs all day, then
>    they *only* become a fireball king. :)
>
>    Exponentially higher skill/spell costs. The tougher things become,
>    the harder they are to learn. Great.
>
>    The combat system. I really love the way degrees of success are
>    determined, and subsequent degrees of damage. Higher skill plus a
>    good swing, and you have a greater chance of scoring more damage.
>    Very nice. I wouldn't cry if this system got revamped, but I'd
>    hate to lose the essence of it, that keeps the skill involved with
>    the results (although personally I could live with things the way
>    they are). Might be nice to expand on it with a more detailed hit
>    location and damage description set of tables, similar to
>    Rolemaster. I'd love to incorporate specific medical conditions,
>    such as cumulative blood loss, etc. :)
>
>    Anyway, I could go on for hours, but I'll close with one last
>    item, and that is money and magic items. I like that prices are
>    more realistic, and that everything isn't based on piles of gold.
>    I also like that magic items aren't monstrously powerful, and the
>    system lends itself more easily to having a low-powered game where
>    magic items aren't falling out of everyone's pockets. (I prefer
>    games where magic items are extremely rare.)
>
>
>    Oh yeah, on a side note, I'll mention a couple of things I've
>    avoided using for 20 years, because I thought they detracted from
>    the game or weren't too whoopy.
>
>    Upper and lower planes of existence. Way too vague. In my world
>    everything happens in one reality, on one world, and everybody has
>    their own patch of earth somewhere to call home.
>
>    Perilous Lands. I know, to my surprise everyone here seems to love
>    it, but I didn't really like it very much. Regardless of that, my
>    point is that a game shouldn't (in my opinion) be tied too closely
>    with a specific game world. It makes it difficult sometimes to then
>    adapt it for use with one's own.
>
>    Ah well, I've rambled enough. That's all for now!
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>   Kurgan                         mailto:Kurgan at Fastmail.fm