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

[Choinski, Burt]

Larry D. Hols [SMTP:crkdface at PCPARTNER.NET]
||>Seriously, I have at times taken the encounter rolled and tweaked it
a
||>little (I once took a Great Ape encounter and described them as big
evil
||>bears.  I think I tweaked the stats a little, and modified the
behavior
||>a tad, but it worked okay)
||
||        This is true.  I created several creatures to fit into my
|| campaigns.  They got ported to campaigns using other rules sytems,
too.  I
|| would like a well-developed bestiary in the core rules set.  I don't
want
|| the xD&D monster-a-minute hodge podge, but I do see a need for
greater
|| variety in the P&P set.

Actually, in the above example I gave it was a one-shot because I wanted
to give them something "unknown" (they were in strange territories).

And for cripes sakes alter the CDF determination.  I hate the current
"AHP squared" system (tecnically, it's AHP*(AHP/10), but you get the
point).  Huge meat-wad creatures who can't hit the side of a mountain or
are just there for the whacking (low OCV or DCV) are worth a ton of
points, for very little risk.

Also, larger creatures should get some sort of protection against
"deadly hits".  Example: many huge creatures are pitiful in the DCV
department, so any PC with a decent EL and OCV is going to be lopping
heads.
        -- Burton
---------------------------------------------------------
Burton Choinski, Peritus Software Services Inc.
bchoinski at peritus.com

> >|| So giving the playable races recognizable names will help players
> >imagine
> >|| how they look and behave, using known myths and tales and not
> having
> >to
> >|| resort to the rule books for a description. On the other hand,
> >changing the
> >|| creatures names will make them instantly unrecognizable and keep
> the
> >world
> >|| exciting and new. And the names given are good choices for that.
> It
> >is my
> >|| opinion that both names should be used in a basic system, with the
> >generic
> >|| names to help new players and game masters get a feeling for the
> >world and
> >|| the characters.
>
>         Many games have taken the approach of using staock fantasy
> races
> and turning them into "bionic races"--the "we can make him better than
> before" from the _Six Million Dollar Man_ television show.  The result
> is a
> generic elf race similar to xD&D's elves, but with more innate powers
> and
> neato gizmos.  That is something I want to avoid.
>         I want a different take on elves completely.  Yes, they look
> like
> elves.  Yes, the other races probably call them elves.  They don't
> have to
> act like stock fantasy elves, though--they can be unique.  They can be
> new
> and refreshing.  They can set a new standard in elves.
>         The races will be referred to in both fashions in the rules.
> Most
> often they will be called by the proper name, because experienced
> gamers
> will take one look and say "Those are elves" (or dwarves, etc.) but
> wonder
> why they aren't all hugging trees or whatever.
>
> >I could cope with the "mutating" of existing creatures in Book 3 to
> >eliminate the "obvious" commonly known creatures (i.e. Change the
> >"Unicorn" into a deer-like form, change the description a bit, tweak
> the
> >stats, alter the motivation a tad, give it a new name (probably elder
> >based).  The exotic and the unknown are much more interesting (IMHO)
> >than the heavily overused generic creatures.  We can still have some
>
>         The challenge is to take stock issues and make them unique and
> exciting.  Yes, the game draws from varied sources.  However, just
> because
> Nordic lore was used as a source doesn't mean that the creature in
> question
> should appear exactly as that lore says.  The creatures in P&P should
> be
> P&P creatures, first and foremost, regardless of the background they
> came
> from.
>
> LArry