Re: Leave it alone!!!

From: Jeff <jeff.kyer_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:50:56 -0000

> >
> > > If it ain't broken then don't fix it!!
> >
> > And if it's only moderately flakey, don't bother trying to improve
> >it?
> >
>
> 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...

This is a good point.

I'm happy with abilities being 1 HP (pyramid yah yah etc etc) to raise and MAGIC STUFF being 3 HP to raise (no pyramid, just +1 per session) and then allow players to buy specializations inside those (but only +1 per session or something like that).

I fear it would encourage min-maxing but it also will encourage differentiation of characters by making sure that Close/Ranged combat are not huge 'HP sinks'

Just making sure IN THE RULES of 2nd ed that there's a good example of how to deal with a player who's got a 'strong' and trying to use it everywhere would probably be the best approach.

Striving for a middle ground,

Jeff   

> > 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 you
> fail 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!