Re: Skill Descriptions

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:32:18 -0800

> << If you don't like this vagueness, well, you're not alone, and I suppose
> > you could always try and devise a skill list, or borrow one from
another
> > game. :-(
>
> Not having skill lists was a design goal. >>
>
> I didn't say it wasn't deliberate, I said I didn't like it ;-)

I was just pointing it out to those that haven't seen it before :-)

> <<Look at the proliferation of skills brought into RQ after the main
rulebook
> was written, or (for a much more extreme example) ICE's Rolemaster. No
game's
> skill list can possibly
> match all skills that players will want their characters to have, so we
did
> away with the concept entirely.>>
>
> Or 'if we can't make the skill list perfect, we may as well not
bother
> making that aspect of the game any good at all'. OK, I realise that isn't
> really your thinking, but its the net effect for those of us who like
skill
> lists (fortunately, as I've said, its a fairly easy problem to fix with
house
> rules). There's no doubt that many people will applaud your decision, but
you
> can't please all of the people all of the time!

If I could, would I be doing *this*?

I have not seen any game that, straight out of the box, had a perfect skill, and have seen supplement after supplement come out with new skills and new rules for them, and still they are not perfect!

> of a skill list pales into insignificance, IMO. Somebody please correct me
if
> I'm wrong, and the rules for these feats are indeed in the book somewhere
I
> overlooked.

No, you are absolutely correct, they are *not* explained.

Roderick