Phoenix (skill mechanism)

[Choinski, Burton]

    One of the things that I liked about RuneQuest was the skill improvement
system as we played it with our houserules. Each successful use of a skill
would get a checkmark to the skill. When time was available to ponder what
had happened (after a battle - not during) one could roll to increase in any
skill checked. Multiple checks meant an improved chance of successfully
increasing the skill.
    In combat P&P gives an automatic expertise, once only per skill, that
requires knowing the CDF of the highest CDF opponent the skill was used
against. Actually I believe that Scott uses a house rule modification
eliminating the once only limitation. Rule 2.22 also lists other ways
expertise is gained.

At one point I was playing around with the ruleset, trying to work out my
own version of "P&P light".  In one incarnation I think I had collapsed the
skill costs by a factor of five (producing NELx1, NELx2, NELx3 and NELx4
skills).  If a skill was used successfully in a "scene" you gained a d6 roll
afterwards.  For combat skills I think you got 1d6 per CDF.  At the end you
simply rolled and gained an actual skill point on even die rolls.  It has
been a while, so I can't remember all the details.

One of the biggest problems in P&P combat experience is that, effectively,
experience boiled down to AHP squared.  Giants, with horrendous DCV, were
just meat on feet and were actually sought after for EXP gain.




----------------------------------------
Burton Choinski
Principal Software Engineer, Quality Engineering
email: burton.choinski at matrixone.com

phone: 978-322-2135
fax  : 978-452-5764

MatrixOne, Inc.
Two Executive Drive
Chelmsford, Ma 01824
www.matrixone.com

The First in Intelligent Collaborative Commerce
----------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Koponen [mailto:akoponen at MOSQUITONET.COM]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:12 PM
To: POWERS-AND-PERILS at geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL
Subject: Re: Phoenix (skill mechanism)


    Burton has an excellent point. Though I'd played D&D since 1976, by the
time (1984) when P&P came out I was tired of D&D's poor design. 3rd Ed. D&D
has done an excellent job of improving the game, not least because it came
up with a single better and more elegant game mechanism for attributes and
another for combat.
    P&P would be simpler to learn and easier to play if it only had a single
elegant skill/combat mechanism (that worked well for all things). So far as
I see the P&P attribute (ability) system is fine.

    One of the things that I liked about RuneQuest was the skill improvement
system as we played it with our houserules. Each successful use of a skill
would get a checkmark to the skill. When time was available to ponder what
had happened (after a battle - not during) one could roll to increase in any
skill checked. Multiple checks meant an improved chance of successfully
increasing the skill.
    In combat P&P gives an automatic expertise, once only per skill, that
requires knowing the CDF of the highest CDF opponent the skill was used
against. Actually I believe that Scott uses a house rule modification
eliminating the once only limitation. Rule 2.22 also lists other ways
expertise is gained.

----- Original Message -----

From: Choinski, Burton <mailto:Burton.Choinski at MATRIXONE.COM>
To: POWERS-AND-PERILS at geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL
<mailto:POWERS-AND-PERILS at geo000.CITG.TUDELFT.NL>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Phoenix

The biggest problem that I see P&P "classic" to have is differing rules for
what really could use the same mechanism.  Combat uses one form of die roll
mechanism, while Magic uses a similar method.  Ranged combat has a kind of
odd "bolt-on" flavor.  Skills are resolved with a different mechanism (and
where some are EL based, while others are percentage, how the skills are
handled is also different. Even some skills or abilities (Climbing,
swimming, dodge) have special case resolution mechanisms that make it
unweildy.

I see no reason why a general skill mechanism cannot be figured out that can
apply to all skill tasks. The hard trick has always been to retain the
"cinematic" feel (or "conan-ness", if you prefer) where a PC can take on a
bunch of mooks and have a reasonable chance of making it out (if he is
careful), but not to make it so much so that player characters can
completely run roughshod over the world.

I think a good part of the complexity can be evened out if some of the odd
mechanisms can be collapsed into fewer ones.  An example of this I might
point to is my "target-12" skill variant system, on Wout's site.
         -- Burton


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.powersandperils.org/pipermail/pnp/attachments/20031017/ada5a8d9/attachment.html>