<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
biggest problem that I see P&P "classic" to have is differing rules for what
really could use the same mechanism. Combat uses one form of die roll
mechanism, while Magic uses a similar method. Ranged combat has a kind of
odd "bolt-on" flavor. Skills are resolved with a different mechanism (and
where some are EL based, while others are percentage, how the skills are handled
is also different. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Even some skills or abilities (Climbing, swimming, dodge)
have special case resolution mechanisms that make it unweildy.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I see
no reason why a general skill mechanism cannot be figured out that can apply to
all skill tasks. The hard trick has always been to retain the "cinematic" feel
(or "conan-ness", if you prefer) where a PC can take on a bunch of mooks and
have a reasonable chance of making it out (if he is careful), but not to make it
so much so that player characters can completely run roughshod over the
world. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
think a good part of the complexity can be evened out if some of the odd
mechanisms can be collapsed into fewer ones. An example of this I might
point to is my "target-12" skill variant system, on Wout's site.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=672460815-16102003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> --
Burton</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<P><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>----------------------------------------</FONT> <BR><B><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Burton Choinski</FONT></B> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Principal Software
Engineer, Quality Engineering</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>email:
burton.choinski@matrixone.com</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>phone: 978-322-2135</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>fax : 978-452-5764</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>MatrixOne, Inc.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Two Executive Drive</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chelmsford, Ma
01824</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>www.matrixone.com</FONT> </P>
<P><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>The First in Intelligent Collaborative
Commerce</FONT></I> <BR><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>----------------------------------------</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Albert Sales
[mailto:drite_mi@YAHOO.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:28
AM<BR><B>To:</B> POWERS-AND-PERILS@GEO.CITG.TUDELFT.NL<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
Phoenix<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Actually, with all the options pulled out, P&P is only moderately
complex. A few minor changes could do a LOT of simplification, with the
"complications" we all love being listed in an "Options" section of the books.
Possibly, a "Starter Book (Book Zero)" could include cut-down basic rules,
with the standard rules being listed in the other books (had anyone here
played Star Frontiers? They used a similar approache, but the system never
became very complex.).</DIV>
<DIV> I've also noticed that my new players have the HARDEST time
with character creation. A pregenerated adventure or two with premade
characters (including an explaination as to how their points were spent) could
be VERY helpful... the best way to learn a system is to play
it.<BR><BR><B><I>Alex Koponen <akoponen@MOSQUITONET.COM></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">One
thing that the reborn P&P would need is an easier way of learning
the<BR>system. P&P has too steep a learning curve to be massively
popular. While<BR>it is easy enough to learn if someone who already knows
the system is<BR>teaching you, learning it by yourself is time consuming and
probably quite<BR>difficult for those not already familiar with role playing
games. I was<BR>familiar with a lot of games and it took me three weeks to
fully grasp how<BR>P&P works. BTW It is a very elegant design, I like
it.<BR><BR>Another problem is that some players just cannot (or don't want
to bother<BR>to)handle the paperwork involved in creating a character and in
keeping<BR>track of expertise for each skill plus CEP et cetera. This
reduces the<BR>number of players by more than just that number since many
groups of<BR>players will skip the game because a small percentage of th e
group reject<BR>the game. (It happened to my group despite two of us being
very positive<BR>about P&P and another being okay with it. Two other
players effectively<BR>nixed the group continuing to play
P&P.)<BR><BR>Alex Koponen<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:
"Richard Snider" <ABNARIC@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>> Secondarily, I am considering
a return to the battlefield in the near<BR>> future, i.e a rebirth of the
P&P Phoenix. If anyone has any comments or<BR>> suggestions I want to
hear them.<BR>> Richard L. Snider<BR>> author - Powers and
Perils<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>