Improving it is fine, the problem is 'Improving' it in a way that causes as many problems as it fixes, and additionally makes everything already published immediately redundant(*). I'd like to buy a new edition of HW, because the layout and clarity could certainly be improved. I don't particularly want to buy a new edition of TR/ST because someone has changed how all the skills work...
> I've never understood this sort of Conservative Tribesman Rioting:
> Moderately Common Event reaction. Can't we at least have a
> discussion on the respective merits of the available options
>_before_ playing the "rules inertia" joker?
Well, isn't that what we're having. The fact that some peoples opinion is that nothing should change because they don't see a problem with the published rules is certainly a valid one, even if it is at odds with your own opinion.
I'm all for avoiding complexity. To use hunting as an example again - If an episode in the adventure calls for the PC's to sneak through the woods to spy on their foes I'd expect the dialogue to go something like this
Player 1:"Ok we sneak up through the woods towards the campfire, keeping an eye out for guards"
GM: "Fair enough - What are your relevant skills ?"
Player 1: "I've got 'Sneak 17' and 'Sharp Eyed 1W'" GM: "OK"
Player 2: "I've got 'Stalk Prey 17' and 'Night Vision 14'" GM: "OK"
Player 3:"I've got 'Hunting 1W'
GM: "OK" or "Alright - this isn't quite the same as hunting, so -3 Improv" or "OK you'll just make one roll (and I'll decide which part youfail if you don't make it...)"
rather than have a list of skills which hunting can be used for, and at what penalty, or a seperate list of costs to improve each set of
(Of course if all the players have "Hunting" rather than a more specific skill then no modifiers are necessary...)
(*) Legend of the 5 Rings 2nd Edition being a prime example!
Powered by hypermail