P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce]

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

>The very things that attract me in P&P v1 are
>1) the percentile scale attributes and skills, allowing a great
>differentiation in characters

        The problem with a percentile characteristic scale can best be
summed up with a question:  what is the difference between a 43 and a 44?
That's right, basically nothing.  There is widespread sentiment in the
gaming community that such is not desirable.  Many people want to see that
a difference in their numbers actually means something.
        So, for the characteristics to have much difference, there needs to
be about five points between them.  Might as well divide them all by five
and have twenty points on the scale.  I used a spread of 11 for humans, but
that could change in response to playtesting.

>2) the flexibility (lack of rules) allowing for example a fighter-magic user
>who can develop to a master in both fields over time

        This can still be done, to large extent.  There is nothing to
prevent a fighter from having some talent with magic.  There is nothing to
prevent a magician from being good with a sword.  The use of development
areas is simply to allow for greater differentiation of characters from the
get go.
        See, without an emphasis on the core concept of the character,
players tend to always hedge their bets, choosing skills that balance out
their weak areas.  Hence, where the system allows for it, mages will have
some strong weapon skill and the like.  This is not ruled out with the
approach I have taken, but the player is directed away from this unless
they are truly set on doing so.

>3) the randomness in the character generation process

        Many gamers want choice in character creation.  They say some
random factors can be good, but a random system for the important parts
(characteristics, for instance) is not preferable.  If this were a good
thing for them, they would have stayed playing AD&D.

>You can understand from this that I am not one of the greatest fans of this
>proposal when it is dubbed P&P v2. They are a nice set of rules, I don't
>mean that, but in my opinion they are the rules for a completely different
>game than the ultra-flexible P&P v1.

        Hmmm.  Interesting.  The things that appealed to me the most about
P&P were the setting, the difference between experience and expertise, and
the flexibility in using a point system with skills.  The first thing to
annoy me was the randomness of the character generation.  The people I
managed to persuade to play the game with me had the same basic response.
        I went to the bonus/penalty rating scale to allow for easy
integration of non-human beings.  I've toyed with centering the scale on 10
and using the characteristics more as targets in skill use, but that didn't
seem to be as streamlined.

>The differentiation possible in characteristics etc. leads to about 10
>levels, roughly the same as in Runequest or D&D, and the character
>generation process is more or less diceless. The system of a trade-off
>between different development areas may lead to well-balanced characters,
>but also with little differentiation.

        Actually, it seems to allow for greater differentiation.  When
creating a character with a social emphasis, for example, the player must
begin thinking about social ties and abilities.  The choices made with
these in mind are more likely to be different than the choices made with a
magical emphasis in mind.
        That said, I'm not opposed to some random element in the process.
I know that random factors in the really important parts will keep many
from playing the game.  I'm willing to figure out where to put the random
factors to keep this from happening and still add some spice to the
process.

>Now with P&P v2 I can create the same character over and over again, what is
>there to stop me from doing this? Now this can be a good thing, but as said
>it is the randomness in P&P v1 I like. To get to the point:

        There is nothing to stop you from doing so, if that is what you
want.  Well, there is nothing in the rules, nor should there be.  The
entire point of playing the game is to have fun.  If you want to have fun
playing the same character over and over, that is your prerogative.  It is
not my intent to force the player to play something different each time,
nor do I think it should be.
        Now, if your playing group dislikes that, then the GM can rule out
a clone character and force creation of something different.  That is where
such control should be.  The system should allow for player control in
having fun; the gaming group needs to take up issues such as clone
characters.
        That said, why would anyone actually want to play the same basic
character time after time?  I know there are people like this, but I don't
understand the urge.  It sounds boring on the face of it, and I don't think
enough people would do this that it needs to be a concern.

>IMO the special events are not things to be chosen, but events the character
>and the player have no control over. That would suggest a random choice, id
>est a die roll.
>Now I have been trying to get that 44-46 combination for years, no luck yet,
>but why would that randomness be troublesome?

        Having rolled and received only bad things on the random events
table, and having also rolled for really good things on that table, I have
to wonder about the advisibility of having a set of random rolls have that
much input on a character.  This one table can cast a pall over a character
conception, making a character a poor play, or it can turn him into
superman.  That range is too extreme for my taste.

>So, why the trouble of dubbing this game P&P v2 and getting AH's approval?

        I'm not after their approval.  I'm wanting them to publish the
game.  Resurrect the P&P name and support it.  I sold them on the idea of
the possibility of bring another game to market besides RQ, and they're
interested.  This manuscript was to audition my writing, so to speak, so
they could see if I could actually write a set of rules.  (It didn't matter
that I have written a game for a different company--release moved back to
next spring--they want to see sample writing.)
        Realize that what I put in the manuscript is not set in stone.
I've toyed with lots of ideas and used those that I thought would position
the game well in the market.  Much can be changed in response to
playtesting, and probably will be.  I plan on bouncing lots of ideas off
the playtesters, if the game makes it to that stage.
        Here are the various priorities as I see them:

        AH wants a quality product that will sell to a wide audience.
        I want a game that preserves the essential flavor of the P&P
universe while updating the mechanics to a set that will appeal to more
gamers.
        The OP&Pers (that is, you people) want a game that reflects many of
the aspects that drew you to it in the first place.

        These are not all mutually exclusive.  I can even see using a
percentile system, although it would allow for character generation in five
percent increments most likely.  I have a wide latitude available for
achieving the first two prioities:  AH will be happy with a well-written
system and probably isn't too particular about the mechanics.  I want to
retain the flavor of the setting while adding some particular thrust to
character creation.  The actual mechanics are the most malleable part of
the equation, and those will be hashed out in playtesting.

Larry