<!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>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><EM> One of the
things that I liked about RuneQuest was the skill improvement system as we
played it with our houserules. Each successful use of a skill would get a
checkmark to the skill. When time was available to ponder what had happened
(after a battle - not during) one could roll to increase in any skill
checked. Multiple checks meant an improved chance of successfully increasing the
skill. </EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><EM> In combat
P&P gives an automatic expertise, once only per skill, that requires knowing
the CDF of the highest CDF opponent the skill was used against. Actually I
believe that Scott uses a house rule modification eliminating the once only
limitation. Rule 2.22 also lists other ways expertise is
gained.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=683470212-17102003><FONT face=Arial size=2>At one point I was
playing around with the ruleset, trying to work out my own version of "P&P
light". In one incarnation I think I had collapsed the skill costs by a
factor of five (producing NELx1, NELx2, NELx3 and NELx4 skills). If a
skill was used successfully in a "scene" you gained a d6 roll afterwards.
For combat skills I think you got 1d6 per CDF. At the end you simply
rolled and gained an actual skill point on even die rolls. It has been a
while, so I can't remember all the details.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=683470212-17102003><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=683470212-17102003><FONT face=Arial size=2>One of the biggest
problems in P&P combat experience is that, effectively, experience boiled
down to AHP squared. Giants, with horrendous DCV, were just meat on feet
and were actually sought after for EXP gain.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=683470212-17102003><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </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> Alex Koponen
[mailto:akoponen@MOSQUITONET.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 16, 2003
4:12 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
POWERS-AND-PERILS@geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Phoenix (skill
mechanism)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Burton has an excellent point.
Though I'd played D&D since 1976, by the time (1984) when P&P came out
I was tired of D&D's poor design. 3rd Ed. D&D has done an excellent
job of improving the game, not least because it came up with a single better
and more elegant game mechanism for attributes and another for combat.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> P&P would be simpler to
learn and easier to play if it only had a single elegant skill/combat
mechanism (that worked well for all things). So far as I see the P&P
attribute (ability) system is fine.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> One of the things that I liked
about RuneQuest was the skill improvement system as we played it with our
houserules. Each successful use of a skill would get a checkmark to the skill.
When time was available to ponder what had happened (after a battle - not
during) one could roll to increase in any skill checked. Multiple checks
meant an improved chance of successfully increasing the skill. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In combat P&P gives an
automatic expertise, once only per skill, that requires knowing the CDF of the
highest CDF opponent the skill was used against. Actually I believe that Scott
uses a house rule modification eliminating the once only limitation. Rule 2.22
also lists other ways expertise is gained.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Burton.Choinski@MATRIXONE.COM
href="mailto:Burton.Choinski@MATRIXONE.COM">Choinski, Burton</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=POWERS-AND-PERILS@geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL
href="mailto:POWERS-AND-PERILS@geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL">POWERS-AND-PERILS@geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:22
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Phoenix</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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
size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>