From: Pierre Boulet (Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr)
Date: Mon 07 Jun 1993 - 15:25:39 EEST
Paul Reilly said:
> > Page 37:
> > SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH, replace most of with:
> >
> > The length of time for one training or research session is a
> > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage.
> I'd say:
> number of hours equal to the current skill percentage, not counting
> stat bonuses. Thus a character with a 55% Ride skill, due in part to
> a 5% Agility bonus, must spend 50 hours training to qualify for a skill
> increase.
>
> For several years now we have played that you count stat bonuses on
> skills when you use them but use a _base_ skill with no bonus for experience
> or training. Otherwise the stat bonus just isn't worth more than a few
> hours of initial training. It seems to us that the intelligent woman will
> always have an advantage in Animal Lore or Battle. After years of fighting,
> I'm also convinced that one can't "catch up" to the more dextrous fighters
> by spending equal time training.
>
> Let's compare two characters learning Mathematics, a Hard Knowledge
> skill. Donald the Dullard, Int 8, POW 6, has a -4% Knowledge modifier
> and starts at 1%. Greta the Gifted, INT 18, POW 14, has a 10% bonus
> and starts at 15%.
>
> They go throught the same college, spending 1020 hours training. Under my
> system Greta comes out with a 75% skill and Donald with a 61% skill, as
> I would think appropriate. Under the standard rules, Donald comes out with
> a 63% skill and will soon tick over enough hours to get to 65%, and
> Greta, with more than twice poor Donald's INT and POW, has but a 65%
> skill and is only one quarter of the way to her next increase. I could have
> chosen a number of hours which would have wound them up with the _same_
> skill after equal hours of training, despite the difference in their
> abilities. Anyone who has taught a course will tell you that this is
> not a good model.
>
> ________________________
I like this, and actually play with this rule.
> Page 37:
> SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS, replace with
>
>
> Players keep track of when their characters use their skills.
> Once a skill has been used in a situation that is stressful, or otherwise
> conducive to learning, the player puts a check beside the skill on the
> character sheet. Typical stressful situations include combat, hiding from
> enemies, or operating under time pressure. Working with more experienced
> characters can be a useful learning experience as well. Trivial use of a skill
> (attacking a helpless target, taking an hour to pick a lock, etc.) is
> generally not worth a check. When in doubt, consult with the GM.
>
> At the end of an adventure, the GM allows each player to make a
> certain number of experience rolls for his or her character.
> We recommend allowing 4 experience rolls for each week of adventuring.
how then do you differencies the skills often used and the others,
ex: in a week, the PCs have to face 3 or 4 combats, they will have only
one check, and identically one if they bargain successfully once in this
week. The situation can be inversed...
Perhaps, this means that they cannot assimilate quickly too much action.
But I think that additionnal checks when critical success of fumble under
stress might be adding realism. (perhaps with a first 'critic check' when
a PC have already a check replaces it because its effect overcomes the
precedent one, the subsequent ones stacking up)
What do you think of this?
By the way, I have playtested the new fatigue rules, I like them a lot and
they work well.
For the combat rules, the first time was very long with 4 PCs and an
unexperimented GM (me!). I may not have had a good idea to run a combat
between 16 opponents to learn the rules... I will send a more detailed
(and representative of less complicated combats) comment later.
-Pierre
PS: for the translation of my character sheets, I don't have the time now,
but perhaps next week-end...
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:27 EEST