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

[Wout Broere]

>        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.

Well the difference between 30 and 31 actually can make a difference. The
bonus of course, but that is not the point I want to make. This one percent
difference in Agility was enough to decide the combat priority tie between
two characters in our group, and that priority can make a difference.
Raising A. one point for the unlucky character meant that the tie was
decided on the weight multiplication factor. Yea, we had two characters,
thrown completely random, in the group with exactly the same scores in
strength (23 basic, *4), stamina, agility, dexterity, length, weapon, but
luckily not in weight. That situation was fun. One of them died in a
(surprise) fireball ward pact, no magic resistance at all those fighter
types :).

But the one percent can make a difference, but a small one and that is what
I like in P&P. The characters grow slowly, gradually during a game and not
with sudden jumps in between games like with Rolemaster. That is a part of
the game I like in P&P, and there are very little game systems that have
this property.

When someone doesn't like this, why not choose a different system, possibly
convert part of the Perilous Lands background to that system (e.g. the HERO
conversion by Burt). There may be a widespread sentiment that a percentile
system is undesirable (I don't know of it), but on the other hand that
implies that there is a number (small or large) of players who just desires
such a system. Why should all systems be the same?

>        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.

Well I still disagree. The system makes you choose between social, physical
(fighting), and magical concepts. Now a magic user chooses magic as his
priority. This limits his characteristics and/or wepon proficiency, which
can be increased only so much during play. Even if I shift it around so to
work around this problem as much as I can, that results in poor social
abilities. So choosing a primary development area limits me in the other areas.

You say yourself that "There is nothing to prevent a fighter from having
some talent with magic." But my point was not having some talent, but having
equally good talents in all areas. P&P offers that possibility together with
the possibility of specialising a character in just a single niche. That
flexibility is what I like, and from the comments I get, some other players
do too.

>        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.

Or stayed playing P&P ;)

>        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.

Well maybe the fact that Perilous Lands has been missing from our collection
for all those years has something to do with it. We based our setting on the
TSR Forgotton Realms boxed set and nothing more, slowly fleshing it out to
suit our tastes, which are very much the hack and slay pulp sword and
sorcery style. P&P with its great flexibilty fits into that style pretty
good. We tried several different systems during the years and none of them
made it, compared to P&P.

For me the greatest turn off was almost always the limited number of
characteristic and/or skill levels and the enourmous difference between
subsequent levels. Probably not the best example, but one I find always very
enjoyable is the language proficiency levels in Runequest 3rd ed.
There are only five (or six memory fails me) levels, the lowest being equal
to the skill of saying "Ugh", followed by level 1 where you can point your
finger and say "Want buy leg of lamb that!" and the highest meaning
something like an enraged customer coming in and accusing the butcher: "The
leg of lamb I have acquired in your etablishment yesterday morning must have
been in a state of putrefication even before the change of ownership took
place and I would like, no demand, a reconstitution of funds to take place
at the briefest time span convenient to my liking, which is right now!" or
something equally ridiculous.

When you have acquired enough experience you jump instantly from level 0 to
level and so on. Now good roleplaying can do a lot to this kind of problem,
but good roleplaying DOESN'T need a system of rules. It needs good players.
The best roleplaying always happens when we forget about the rules and let
things come naturally. It is when things are uncertain, when there is a
debate between DM and players, etc, when the rules come into play. And at
that time you tend to stick to them as close as possible.

And at those moments I like a system that has slowly, gradually increasing
abilities and skill. The sudden jumps in other systems were the first things
that annoyed me. People and tastes differ.

>        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.

It will keep some from playing the game, while it will make others play the
game. Total predetermination will keep me from playing the game at least.
Creating a character I start with a rough concept, throw the dice and see
what comes out. Than the concept can be radically changed or just fleshed
out a bit. Random events are an important part of the character (and
background) generation this way. I wouldn't want them out of the process,
the random events can sometimes set of my imagination and have me create a
different type of character than originally intended. You can have just as
much fun with them.

I have played a magic user without Will,Intelligence,Empathy or Consitution
to speak of. Quite some fun. All because of some random character generation
process.

>        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.

It not what I want, it is more what I can see happen. Randomness would
automatically prevent this from ahppening, without any force from the DM.
Having the DM on one side and the players on another is not a good thing.
After all it is ONE roleplaying group we are talking about, one group of
people having fun. Not one person (DM) forcing a group of players to do his
bidding. Roleplaying is about fun, for the players and for the DM, equally.

Your spot on about the group taking on problems as such, though. It holds
for any aspect of the game. The rules however are there to settle the
majority of such disputes between DM and players (or players and players).
The disputes in the order of: "My character can kill that dragon
single-handedly." or "My character can pick the other characters pockets
without him noticing it." The rules are not to grant one of the two groups
total control over the other.

>        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
...
>        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.

You want them to market your idea. Therefore you need their approval. OK.
But if you devise a game system of your own, loosely based on P&P, why don't
you try other companies too?

I want a system that preserves the flavor of P&P too. IMO that system is P&P
as it stands, only in a new edition. NO changes to the rules, only a new
printing, with all the background materials and rule extensions published in
Heroes included in the basic set. Basically I want the possibility to buy a
new set of books because the old ones are slowly disintegrating even though
we are using photocopies in daily use since day one.


It all boils down to the kind of system you want and the possibilities there
are to buy such a system. (There is always the possibility to create your
own system from scratch, we started such a thing but that is a different story.)

What you want is a different system (game mechanics) but the same background
(as I gather). I am of the opinion that such game mechanics are available on
the market today or have been available in the recent past (recent in frp
terms defined as 5 years.) Then there will be the tedious work of converting
the background.

Most new systems are to my opinion of the few levels, huge differences type,
most probably diceless too. What I am looking for is a game of great
flexibility, with that randomness in the character generation. And very
important, without the need to choose one of the archetypes as fighter,
mage, thief, priest at the start of the game and thereby largely determine
what areas the character can develop in, what weapons it can use etc. That
kind of system is becoming rare, even extinct if we say that P&P is extinct
as far as the possibilities of acquiring a set at the local games store are
concerned.

Summed up, what I want is a game that let's me play Dr. Zovaster.(*) This
kind of flexibility / possibilities to create a character is what I want,
however the actual characters turn out. Sometimes good, simteimes bad,
simetimes spectacular.

(*) Dr. Zovaster is one of my all time favorite characters. Posing as a
harmless seller of love potions and a cure-all potion (coloured water) he
was actually a Chaos mage. Favorite spells were Wounds and Quarrels.
Necromantic Powers was a good one too, but not in public, it made the other
group members somewhat uncomfortable. Not the most powerfull mage ever seen
in our group, but doing quite nicely in the magic department. Even had the
possibilities to become one of the most powerfull mages ever :). The odd
thing about him was the EL8 in Two-Handed Hammer he started the game with
(Random Event.) How he got that good  remains a question as he started every
and I mean every combat with at least 4 or 5 spectacular misses (I became
famous for my 00,98,99,00,96 rolls).


Somewhere in the middel of writing this all I recieved Scotts reply, saying
much of the things I say above or wanted to say. And in most cases he said
it a lot clearer. I am aware this has become somewhat of a murky posting,
but what the heck. Still would like to see how your p&p v2 project develops.
And do object to the OP&P naming too, it is a bit derogative. Like P&P v1
more. But then again, I still don't think of this new system as P&P v2. IMO
any other name will do.


This should have been the end, but one more point/idea came up. (to make the
one about murky etc. more clear). You mention, I believe somewhere that you
see this P&P v2 as a system for playing pulp fantasy, sword and sorcery,
like Conan the Librarian. Now that would be possible in any system with some
tweaking but I readily agree that some systems are better suited than
others. P&P v1 is perfectly suited as I have found out, systems with a lot
of emphasis on social interaction and roleplaying are awfully unsuited.
Warhammer FRP is a no-no to play Conan. You wouldn't be able to survive long.

Now judging from character generation you seem to steer p&p v2 towards the
social interaction and roleplaying side. That seems a contrdiction (IMO) or
am I wrong there?

Looking forward to the reply(replies) to this one,
Ft