From: Graeme A Lindsell (graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 1994 - 20:37:33 EET
>
> I agree with David Dunham. The revised mechanism proposed for skill
> increase by Oliver is still horribly clunky. I would prefer the 1D3/1D6/2D6
> gain for Hard/Medium/Easy skills, and am not too bothered by the average 7%
> gain in an Easy skill. RQ2 had a fixed 5% gain -- not too different. OJ's
As one of the people who objected to the 1d3/1d6/2d6 idea in the first draft
I'd better speak up. My main worry was that Easy skills with 2d6 would
seriously unbalance the progression of characters to rune lord level:
those cults with Easy skills needed for rune level would have a lot more
rune levels than those with a lot of Hard skills. I know this isn't a big
problem for people like Nick who play characters around the 40%-60% skill
level, but it'd be a problem in high power campaigns.
I quite like the best of 2d6/worst of 2d6 system you propose though: the
difference isn't nearly so extreme, and I prefer it to needing multiple check
boxes.
> End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks
> awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or
> when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.).
Agreed.
> The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill.
Another option is to make it harder to get a successful increase from
a check for a hard skill ie add 20% to you skill for a hard skill,
subtract 20% for an easy skill for the purposes of making the check. All
increases would be the same, just easy skills would increase more often.
> Nick
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:38 EEST