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

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

>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 think we're speaking crossways here.  I'm not developing a game
loosely based on P&P.  I want to use the P&P universe--the gods, beasts,
and beings of P&P.  I cannot use those if I market a game to another
company.  (Well, if AH decides not to pursue a new edition, then I might be
able to deal for the rights....)

>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.

        This will never happen.  The matter is quite simple:  P&P died
because of poor sales.  The same set of rules will not sell any better now,
and would probably do worse on the market.  They will not be reissued.  A
new set of rules is the only thing that can return P&P to the market.
        Now, I can build a set of rules that are closer to the original
than what I've started.  There will be changes, however, and I think that
is good.  I like P&P (or I wouldn't be doing this) but I don't think the
P&P rules mechanics are the best possible.  They can be better.  I can
build a new set along the same lines (percentile) or I can introduce a new
paradigm.  Remember that I have to look at what will sell in the
marketplace to a wider audience.
        Keep that in mind when I take such things as the wide variance
produced by the random tables and rolls in OP&P to task.  Obviously, those
don't greatly offend OP&Pers or they wouldn't be fans of the game.  The
fact that there are so few players of the game should speak to the
proclivities of the marketplace--there are many more people who don't find
that to be a really good thing.

>Most new systems are to my opinion of the few levels, huge differences type,
>most probably diceless too.

        Huh?  There are very few diceless systems available.  There are
many more low-mechanics systems available, though, because many more
players want them.  They wouldn't be appearing if there weren't a demand
for them.

>What I am looking for is a game of great
>flexibility, with that randomness in the character generation.

        This is where you part from the masses of players.  Most want
choice in character generation, leavened with a bit of randomness.  Most
condemn totally random generation systems.  Such seems to be a considerable
factor in satisfaction with a system and sales generated by word-of-mouth.


>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.

        And what I have written doesn't force the issue.  A social emphasis
favors character interaction with the game setting; it doesn't dictate what
pursuits are available.  A physical emphasis means the character is more
self-contained and doesn't dictate pursuits.  The magical emphasis leads to
the most powerful of mages, but doesn't preclude any other pursuits.  It is
just as possible to develop a mage, however, with a physical emphasis as it
is with a magical emphasis.
        I think the perception you have of the system I started are skewed
by some bad assumptions.  I don't force archetypes, pursuits, etc. on any
character.  I guide players into choices about what type of character they
want to play, and those choices concentrate on developing character--that
is, focusing on the core of the character.  I am not interested in turning
P&P into a class-based system.
        There is nothing in the system I have devised that limits a
character to being only a mage or only a warrior.  He can be both and he
can be very good at both.  The greatness in a variety of areas comes
through much play and development, however, and does not occur in character
creation.  I think this is reasonable and good.

>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.

        Well, if AH proceeds with the project, they will name it.  The
official name for the project to this point, as designated by them, is
Powers & Perils: the 2nd Edition.  I refer to P&P as OP&P because it is the
Original P&P.  For my purposes, it works.  P&P1 would work, also, I guess,
but I got used to using OD&D for the original D&D game, and that stuck with
me.

>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.

        First, the "Conan the Librarian" comment seemed to be an
underhanded slam and has no place in a civilized discussion.  Nothing I
have written deserves such treatment.
        Next, unsuitablility for hack &slash comes from lethality of combat
rules and has nothing to do with role playing suitability or emphasis on
interaction.  I am not planning on making P&P combat any more lethal.  One
of the hallmarks of S&S fiction is the frequency with which the hero
engages foul beasts and nefarious foes in combat.  A highly lethal combat
system wouldn't be suitable to that.
        On a personal level, I've played Warhammer FRP and we did have an
action-oriented game.  Fate Points were a godsend.

>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?

        No contradiction whatsoever.  I steer P&P towards a creation of
solid character conceptions.  If the players want to use interaction only
to the point of dealing with the local ruler to find out where the bad guys
are and go roust them, that's fine by me.  If they want to spend hours at
the Imperial court engaged in wheeling and dealing with assorted nobles,
that's okay, too.  I suspect most people are going to fall between those
extremes and that's just fine.  I am simply leading players to make choices
about what they want so they can concentrate better on doing just that.
        For example, if all you and your group wants to do is pure hack &
slash, then always develop characters with a Primary Physical emphasis.
This does not preclude mages or anything else.  This also reflects the
original process the closest.  No need to have strong social development,
or the additional minor magic abilities.  Concentrate on the
characteristics, skills, and experience of the character just like you do
now.

Larry