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

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

>possibilities for improvement. It will probably bil down to the fact that
>for each kind of system there is a group of players, but the number of them
>will decide whether or not there is really a market. Problem remains to find
>out beforehand what people want in a system.

        That's what I've been trying to do over the past several months.
I've asked people about their preferences and lurked in many an online
discussion.  I've come to a few conclusions:
        1)  Percentile systems do have dedicated audiences.  Rolemaster is
testament to this.  The problem lies in tapping this audience, which is
strongly loyal to the game it already uses.
        2)  Many gamers not strongly loyal to any system state preferences
for midlin'- to low-mechanics systems.
        3)  Rifts has one of the most dedicated audiences around, and it is
a low-mechanic system.  Rifts is constantly a top seller, and its audience
doesn't play many other games.

        This led me to the belief that a new, simpler system was the best
approach to a new version of P&P.  Taking players from Rolemaster, for
instance, would be difficult.  Most of the "unaligned" gamers seem to want
systems other than percentile.  The most gung-ho audience in existence uses
a simple system (d20, I believe).

>Surely I differ from the masses, but so do other players. How mnay and are
>the an economically large enough group? That remains a question for AH.

        That certainly is true.  I doubt that they have much more
information than I have, but they are the Boss.

>A mage. 10 points for magical. Now I use 8 points in physical and 6 in
>social to work around any drawbacks I may see. Magic will work out fine, as
>I have many points to spend there.(*) Socially I have been secluded and will
>need quite some roleplaying to get back. Being a mage I have some status, so
>at least 3 points to get a status level 3, leaves 1 point each for the other
>3 categories.
>
>So by spreading out my points, there is no way I see that the character
>excells in all fields. With p&p v1 this is a possibility, maybe a small one,
>but still. Tell me is this misinterpretation somewhere, or did I miss a key
>fact in the rules?

        So you wish to have a mage.  You choose Physical Emphasis as the
primary.  This simply means that you are more concerned with developing
your characteristics, skills, etc. than with any other process.  The ten
points to develop there will provide plenty of characteristic points, good
expertise, some experience if you want it, and maybe a Keen Ability.
        The 8 points in Magical will still allow for being an Adept, with
basic resistance, etc.  You lose nothing as a mage, per se, even though you
have no Knacks or special resistances or such.
        And socially, well, if you spend 3 points on status, then you still
come out basic in the other categories.  That also stands to reason.  If
you spent most of your time on self-development (physical) and are working
to be one of the greatest mages (Adept), then you probably would not have
spent the time developing all of the relationships to have dependable
contacts and allies.
        I structured this system to show how choices work in conjunction
with each other.  What would be the point of having a chargen system which
allowed starting characters to excel at everything?  Why shouls every
character be able to have a Knack?  Why should every character have a Keen
Ability?  They shouldn't.  By balancing choices, Knacks and Keen Abilities
and such are methods by which characters are differentiated and made
special.   If every character had a Knack, two Keen Abilities, and a passel
of contacts and Allies, there would be no purpose in having such things to
help make characters memorable.

>>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 is a mea culpa. I interpreted OP&P as Old P&P. Sorry for that. IMO it
>is not old (as in almost dead or derelict), but wise and ancient. :)

        And it still sings to us.  Listen and hear its siren song....

>>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.
>
>We seem of different opinion here. A good overal character needs social,
>magical as well as physical abilities.

        A good _starting_ character needs a strong suit in one area and the
basics elsewhere.  As for advanced characters, if they can all have the
same number of Knacks and Allies nad so forth, what would be the point?
Weren't you arguing for differentiation among characters?

>1) The characters have some Keen abilities, Familiarities and Knacks, which
>seem new concepts in the game. Or are they differentations of the special
>events/special abilities from p&p v1? From the post on the special events
>table it seems not to be the case, but I'm not certain.

        They're loosely based on the table.  I took the idea of special
boons and extended it a bit.  These help with character differentiation in
this sense.  They also serve to help define non-human characters by giving
them well-defined types of abilities.  The faerry abilities will be
governed by the Knack rules, for instance.

>2) The names of dwarfs, elves and faerries have been changed. Now I can see
>who is who from the descriptions, but why the change of names?

        Flavor.  There are many, many gamers who see the word "elf", for
instance, and get turned off.  The thinking is along the lines of "same old
same old", and the differences between the new and the tired, old xD&D elf
is never examined.  Talislanta, for instance, was marketed with ads that
read "No Elves!" and did quite well for a while because of it.

>3) The lack of slaves and kings in the character generation process.

        The ramifications of those could be problematic for novice GMs, so
I thought they would best be addressed in a supplement.

>Now changing the game mechanics, and what you have done so far seems to me
>to lead to even radically changing the game mechanics, while keeping the
>flavour of the game is a difficult task. As you have both supporters as
>fierce critics, you can't have done too badly. It is just I am one of the
>critics. And I want to be heard, heard loudly.

        Well, the criticism hasn't been centered on poor writing or the
system being grossly flawed.  The critics have been shocked at the degree
of change.  That puts me a step ahead, I think.  I would rather defend the
approach than have many errors pointed out.
        And I think you need to be heard.  I'm trying to preserve as much
of the flavor of the system as I can, and I may step too far in changing
some matters.  AH has not been in contact with me on a regular basis, in
great contrast to Guy McLimore at PlainLabel, whom I am working with on
_Street Angels_.

>I go along with Paul Ming as he doesn't want to see P&P go the AD&D way.

        That I'm trying to avoid.  As I pointed out before, the AD&D2
debacle was mostly a matter of wishy-washy product that didn't serve any
part of the audience well.

LArry