<!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 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=145514720-27012004>|| </SPAN>A different way to handle these skills is
covered under strength (breaking things). </FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=145514720-27012004>|| </SPAN>Roll 1d10 and divide an "or 80" skill level
by the result. This gives a huge range </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=145514720-27012004>|| </SPAN>of possibilities, and greatly
emphasizes highly skilled individuals. The
</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=145514720-27012004>|| </SPAN>"breaking
things" rule is what lead to the "Work Points" (which I'm still trying to
locate).</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only problem
with this is you start having to do nasty math on the fly (quick! 59/7).
It also assumes that we are having all skills at a percentage level (which I do
not have a problem with -- it worked fine in RuneQuest, and would work here as
long as we are cinsistent).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial size=2>An alternate way is
to borrow an idea from Harn. For skill tasks you roll vs. your percentile
skill (say, "59"), but the quality of your success (special success, normal
success, failure or special failure) is judged based on your Effectiveness
Level, which is basically your skill/10, rounded down. So the guy above
with 59 skill has an EL of 5.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial size=2>This sort of flows
with the idea that if two people both get a success, the one with greater skill
should have a better overall result.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial size=2>In order to keep
things simple (and different, so we don't get sued by Columbia games! :),
perhaps dealing in "quartiles" would work. Each 25% is a Quartile (or call
it by the level -- Apprentice at 0-24, Journeyman at 25-49, and ratings of
mastery at each 25% points afterwards (Master I at 50-74, Master II at 75-99,
Master III ast 100-124), etc).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2>The actual skill maxumums would have to be tweaked. We have some "or 80" skills that are "ATT1+ATT2", and others that are "<SPAN
class=145514720-27012004>(</SPAN>ATT1+ATT2)/2".</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=145514720-27012004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Now,
looking back at the use of EL for skills. Say we converted everything to
ELx format skills. No "or 80". One person noted that figuring maximums was
a constant pain (I know it was for me when i ran a game with my wife
involved...she hated all the math, so I was the one doing all the
refigs).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Why
don't we use the existing bonus system, but we carry it forward for all
attributes. Maximums could be figured as "8" plus the highest
attribute bonus plus the LOWEST attribute bonus. This a Heavy sword skill
with a max of "S,St" and some Shmoe with SB+3 and StB+1 would have a maximum of
12. For Quaterstaff, which is "S,St,A,D" and if the shmoe's DB is +0 and
his AB is +0, his maximum is 11.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
way to handle the "simple skills" (the ones that had a maximum of att+att, not
(att+att)/2) would be to make all tasks a step easier. You could even
extend it the other way and make complex skills (Armorer, Healer, Herbalist) a
step more difficult.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=145514720-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<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:</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>978-589-4089</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>fax: </FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>978-589-5903</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>MatrixOne, Inc.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>210 Littleton Rd.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Westford, Ma
01886</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="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> Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:37
PM<BR><B>To:</B> POWERS-AND-PERILS@GEO.CITG.TUDELFT.NL<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
Skill resolution mechanics<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>I couldn't agree more (although I have seen it work in Pendragon). The
streamlining will make the skill tests easier to handle to give less of an
interuption. Standardized tables would even allow for true free-form play once
people were used to it. The only changes I really mentioned are to reduce the
number of tables and to allow open-ended testing. Open ended means the
character is trying to do something, but not to a specific level.</DIV>
<DIV> A different way to handle these skills is covered under
strength (breaking things). Roll 1d10 and divide an "or 80" skill level by the
result. This gives a huge range of possibilities, and greatly emphasizes
highly skilled individuals. The "breaking things" rule is what lead to the
"Work Points" (which I'm still trying to locate).</DIV>
<DIV> Either way, one roll can tell you how much the character CAN
accomplish in their work. The system listed in book One currently (at EL 80)
gives the IMPOSSIBLE category a larger slice of the success pie than very
difficult and difficult. The difficulty must be figured out for these, as
well. With a free-form system, I usually ask for the test, get the results,
and ask myself: "Is that difficulty good enough?" If they roled impossible,
the answer is yes. Almost always for VD, frequently for difficult. It speeds
up the game, and allows for smooth play when skill-tests are needed.</DIV>
<DIV> Adding a standardized table would smooth this even more in
that it would reduce the math required to figure out the level of success. My
original description included algebraic sequence lingo. To me, that math is no
more difficult than we already use, because I did it once. I'll try to find
the pages to attach to a message, but they are archived on a CD, or I'll
remake them by march for posting. I hope you'll like what you see, and the
tables can explain themselves better than I can explain them. (Odd because I
pieced them together.)<BR><BR><B><I>"Choinski, Burton"
<Burton.Choinski@MATRIXONE.COM></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
think that in general we want to stay away from "table lookup" in terms of
running the game activities (I don't thing it is a problem for character,
treasure or encounter generation).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Combat and skill use is much more streamlined if all you need do is
roll the dice and judge the results right there. when you add the
table lookup/cross-reference it interrupts the pace.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
class=502235713-27012004></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>