Mad Skills

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Interesting - can you define for the difference between AV/RV?

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Interesting - can you define for the difference between AV/RV?

 

cheers, Mark

 

Active Value vs. Resistance Value, which is basically "skill-talk" for OCV vs. DCV. Its not wholly my idea. Its a extrapolation of the tool-kitting option at the bottom of the last column on 6E1-57. I whipped out two characters last night, but they are on my home computer and the internet connection there is being worked on. I'll post them when I can.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

4th edition' date=' when the current system took shape. In the years since then skills have essentially been unchanged, part from seduction becoming charm They are, perhaps, the part of the rules which have changed least from the original Champions.[/quote']

 

To restate slightly, these are, perhaps, the part of the rules which have evolved least from the original Champions. Perhaps they could use a review to assess whether they have been left behind.

 

While I would agree that adding more complexity to achieve no benefits is counterproductive, providing more options, even options which have complexity, is not a bad thing. Your assumption no one would use a more detailed system does not explain why the issue keeps coming up. As you point out, this is hardly the first thread to suggest it. I'm not convinced it's a desirable Hero System Base Rules inclusion, but it may well be useful APG fodder.

 

Read this' date=' recognize the words .. can't understand it. "Ideally"? "Match the combat system ...closely"? In the name of god, why? Is this some kind of platonic thing, like the "ideal system"? I see no such requirement.[/quote']

 

Ideally, if we are adding a new system, I think it would parallel existing systems as much as possible. This assumes, however, that such a system can accomplish the objective effectively and efficiently. As an example, I think AD&D 1e erred in making Pummelling, Grappling and Overbearing systems completely separate and apart from the main combat system, a bard class that was separate and apart from the typical character class structure and psionics systems completely separate and apart from the main, level-based character growth system. Different rules for humans and non-humans with multiple classes was also, in my view, a mistake. Merging the systems was a good move on the part of later editions (whether or not one agrees with the specific system adopted).

 

Up to a point. Beyond that point more options disintegrates into a bland mélange. You no longer have a game system - you have a selection of rules from which you can assemble a game that somewhat resembles other games assembled from the same menu.

 

You mean like choosing whether we use:

 

- gear is free vs gear costs points

- normal characteristic maxima

- damage capped at double weapon base

- knockback, knockdown or neither

- hit locations

- impairing and disabling wounds

- the various optional combat maneuvers

- multiple attacker bonuses

 

just off the top of my head from optional rules in the basic rules set? I don't think we disagree that some options are desirable and others may be overkill. But I think there's a wide difference of viewpoints among the gaming community as to where the line is drawn.

 

I would like to simplify the combat system though. Indeed' date=' I have already made some small house rules of my own to that exact end. Simplification, if it can be done without significant loss of utility is good, IMO. Going in the other direction - adding complexity, needs to meet a much stricter standard: at least from me.[/quote']

 

Lower complexity with the same utility and greater utility with no increase in complexity are pretty easy to get behind. They're not that easy to locate in practice. And, again, different gamers have different balancing points in respect of utility, flexibility and complexity. Providing options makes the system useful to a wider range of such gamers. Somewhere between Coin Toss Hero and something so complex that the game consists almost entirely of flowing through charts of rule decisions lies that sweet spot everyone is looking for - but agreement as to where that sweet spot lies is pretty tough to achieve.

 

Right. Games with a "resolve a research problem" cry out to break the big problem down into smaller problems' date=' that can then form the spine of an adventure. That's how it's structured in the TV series or written fiction, that you allude to: find out X that allows Y, that lets you solve Z. But that brings us back to actual roleplaying: you don't need a specific skill system, or even more granularity to do precisely this. You're right "Make a roll to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture the same flavour (in fact, it captures no flavour at all). But then "Make 6 rolls in succession to determine success or failure" doesn't really capture any flavour, either. The flavour is in the doing, not the rolling. The rolls are only meaningful if they are attached to an action ("[i']I stab him in the face![/i]" or "I go to the library to see if they have anything on Fleetworzels"). And that already works well with the system we have.

 

When one breaks down combat, it is also just a series of rolls in succession. The difference is that we have considerable structure for such rolls. Having a better defined structure to guide a series of rolls in succession for skill resolution would, in my view, potentially enhance many games. I suspect others also see such potential, which is why the matter continues to come up. A lot of us have no desire to write our own rules, subsystem or system, so the possibility of having such rules in the game system itself appeals. We could probably write our own rules for mass combat, kingdoms or what have you as well. At the extreme, we could even design our own combat rules, Those who want to use rules for such areas typically value having system rules, rather than having to design their own house rules. If most of us wanted to design our own rules, we would design our own games.

 

Most house rules come from a desire to add something perceived as lacking, or correct something perceived as wrong, in the game. I suspect some 1e game group at some point thought there should be rules for a head shot, leading to a desire for rules for hit locations. When Fantasy Hero was developed, the Champions system's lack of rules for buffing allies and healing them became apparent, and rules were created for these. Rules for multiple attacks and multiple power attacks developed over time. 5e's combat maneuvers were perceived lacking in the absence of a non-martial maneuver which could trip an opponent, so 6e added such a maneuver. each of these developments certainly added complexity, perhaps even complexity some gamers did not desire (many groups do not use Sweep, Rapid Attack or Multiple Power Attacks), but I consider them positive developments.

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Warning: This post contains Mossad Protagonists. Don't be a Pink. If you hate the "dastardly" Mossad the NGD fora awaits you...

 

The attached characters were constructed using the method on 6E1-57 "Toolkitting: Changing How Skill Rolls Work" for both skill rolls and primary characteristic rolls as a means of streamlining the system for a stricly heroic baseline, character-narrative driven "stale beer in a martini glass" espionage game. The guiding principles can be found in Post #25 of this very thread. Some genre references are: Covert Affairs (TV), Little Drummer Girl (Book), Mack Bolan #39 onward (Books), Ronin (Film), Rubicon (TV), and Spooks (TV).

 

Because my design philosophy is "Slack,"

 

1. No mental combat values, which are superfluous genre-wise.
   
2. No End, which can be modelled with con rolls where dramatically apropos.
   
3. PD and ED are "Tough." Equipment would still be expressed as PD/ED as needed.
   
4. OCV and DCV are "Combat." Differing values could be expressed as "Attack" and "Defend."
   
5. I have Complications and Tropes on the sheets. They overlap, but tropes are fluff.
   
6. Hebrew for "Top Secret" is "Sodi-Beyoter," which translates "Most Secret."
   

The male protagonist is basically an Israeli Mack Bolan knock-off, as evinced by his pirated cover; The female protagonist is an amalgam of guille spy heroines, more or less. She's more Annie Walker than Sydney Bristow or Nikita.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

To restate slightly' date=' these are, perhaps, the part of the rules which have evolved least from the original Champions. Perhaps they could use a review to assess whether they have been left behind.[/quote']

 

But they have been reviewed - both by SteveL and the rabid fanbase. The skills section of the "what would you like to see" was pretty inactive compared to the powers and characteristic section

 

While I would agree that adding more complexity to achieve no benefits is counterproductive' date=' providing more options, even options which have complexity, is not a bad thing. Your assumption no one would use a more detailed system does not explain why the issue keeps coming up. As you point out, this is hardly the first thread to suggest it. I'm not convinced it's a desirable Hero System Base Rules inclusion, but it may well be useful APG fodder.[/quote']

 

It's always the same two people who bring it up, though I'm convinced it's not a desirable Hero System Base Rules inclusion. Of course, it may be useful in APG - but given the lack of interest, I suspect it's a section SteveL will never write. And if he did write it, it's not like it would see much use anyway, given the apparent lack of interest shown by Hero gamers in general in such a system.

 

Ideally' date=' if we are adding a new system, I think it would parallel existing systems as much as possible. This assumes, however, that such a system can accomplish the objective effectively and efficiently. As an example, I think AD&D 1e erred in making Pummelling, Grappling and Overbearing systems completely separate and apart from the main combat system, a bard class that was separate and apart from the typical character class structure and psionics systems completely separate and apart from the main, level-based character growth system. Different rules for humans and non-humans with multiple classes was also, in my view, a mistake. Merging the systems was a good move on the part of later editions (whether or not one agrees with the specific system adopted).[/quote']

 

I agree with these examples: they're all examples of sub-systems that worked differently from the core system. The fact that they were optional does not excuse that sin.

 

You mean like choosing whether we use:

- gear is free vs gear costs points

- normal characteristic maxima

- damage capped at double weapon base

- knockback, knockdown or neither

- hit locations

- impairing and disabling wounds

- the various optional combat maneuvers

- multiple attacker bonuses

just off the top of my head from optional rules in the basic rules set? I don't think we disagree that some options are desirable and others may be overkill. But I think there's a wide difference of viewpoints among the gaming community as to where the line is drawn.

 

This bit misses the point entirely, however, since none of the items you listed are a apart from, and work differently from the core system - with the possible exception of disabling. Otherwise they are all either fairly minor modifiers to the existing system, or parts of the core system itself (like combat modifiers).

 

When one breaks down combat' date=' it is also just a series of rolls in succession. The difference is that we have considerable structure for such rolls. Having a better defined structure to guide a series of rolls in succession for skill resolution would, in my view, potentially enhance many games. [/quote']

 

In your view. In my view it'd likely be either unplayable, undesirable or both. Certainly games which have attempted that style of play in the past have not fared well in the great marketplace of ideas.

 

I suspect others also see such potential' date=' which is why the matter continues to come up. [/quote']

 

The last time we had this debate, the small number who supported it were greatly outnumbered by the number who abhorred the very idea. Now numbers don't tell the entire tale, and if someone came up with a way of doing this that wasn't inexecrable in concept and probably worse in execution, I and others might change my mind. No-one has so far, though, which is perhaps telling in itself.

 

A lot of us have no desire to write our own rules' date=' subsystem or system, so the possibility of having such rules in the game system itself appeals. We could probably write our own rules for mass combat, kingdoms or what have you as well. At the extreme, we could even design our own combat rules, Those who want to use rules for such areas typically value having system rules, rather than having to design their own house rules. If most of us wanted to design our own rules, we would design our own games.[/quote']

 

Not sure what to say to this, except, well, yeah, good luck with that.

 

Most house rules come from a desire to add something perceived as lacking' date=' or correct something perceived as wrong, in the game. I suspect some 1e game group at some point thought there should be rules for a head shot, leading to a desire for rules for hit locations. When Fantasy Hero was developed, the Champions system's lack of rules for buffing allies and healing them became apparent, and rules were created for these. Rules for multiple attacks and multiple power attacks developed over time. 5e's combat maneuvers were perceived lacking in the absence of a non-martial maneuver which could trip an opponent, so 6e added such a maneuver. each of these developments certainly added complexity, perhaps even complexity some gamers did not desire (many groups do not use Sweep, Rapid Attack or Multiple Power Attacks), but I consider them positive developments.[/quote']

 

Ah, but what's telling, is that in all those cases (apart from MPA, which has been with us from the very dawn of the system), houserules for all of those already existed in numerous groups: we were using hit locations long before they were added to the core rules, and I know we weren't alone in that. Tellingly, however, house rules for the kind of major changes you suggest don't (or more accurately, if they exist, are rare enough that we've never heard of them). That suggests to me there is no widespread desire for such things: an assumption that is confirmed by the rather negative reactions the idea sustained the last time it was discussed.

 

We've still ended in the same place as the discussion did last time. You think because we have detailed rules for physical combat that we should have something analogous for non-combat interactions. I see no need, nor understand why the one should imply the other. To me it's like saying that because we have seagulls that fly through the air, we should have seagulls that fly through the ground. Why? We do need a flexible and in-depth skills system (and fortunately we have one) but I am literally unable to conceive of any apriori reason it would be improved if it were more like the combat system. Nor can I conceive of any way in which that could be achieved without adding more complexity. Now possibly that's down to my feeble intellect ... but really, I doubt that. I suspect it's because so far no-one has made a case for it

 

We're thus left with the promise of - at best - added complexity for no added benefit.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Warning: This post contains Mossad Protagonists. Don't be a Pink. If you hate the "dastardly" Mossad the NGD fora awaits you...

 

The attached characters were constructed using the method on 6E1-57 "Toolkitting: Changing How Skill Rolls Work" for both skill rolls and primary characteristic rolls as a means of streamlining the system for a stricly heroic baseline, character-narrative driven "stale beer in a martini glass" espionage game. The guiding principles can be found in Post #25 of this very thread. Some genre references are: Covert Affairs (TV), Little Drummer Girl (Book), Mack Bolan #39 onward (Books), Ronin (Film), Rubicon (TV), and Spooks (TV).

 

Because my design philosophy is "Slack,"

 

1. No mental combat values, which are superfluous genre-wise.
   
2. No End, which can be modelled with con rolls where dramatically apropos.
   
3. PD and ED are "Tough." Equipment would still be expressed as PD/ED as needed.
   
4. OCV and DCV are "Combat." Differing values could be expressed as "Attack" and "Defend."
   
5. I have Complications and Tropes on the sheets. They overlap, but tropes are fluff.
   
6. Hebrew for "Top Secret" is "Sodi-Beyoter," which translates "Most Secret."
   

The male protagonist is basically an Israeli Mack Bolan knock-off, as evinced by his pirated cover; The female protagonist is an amalgam of guille spy heroines, more or less. She's more Annie Walker than Sydney Bristow or Nikita.

 

Interesting - but really on reading these, the degree of complexity does not seem to have been altered significantly: the names have been changed, as has the presentation, but overall, it looks to me much the same as Hero system (and interestingly, has some of the same house rule simplifications I use, like dropping END use).

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Interesting - but really on reading these, the degree of complexity does not seem to have been altered significantly: the names have been changed, as has the presentation, but overall, it looks to me much the same as Hero system (and interestingly, has some of the same house rule simplifications I use, like dropping END use).

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

It is hero system! Its just streamlined by using the OCV/DCV system for both characteristic rolls, skills and combat, and expressing characteristics as their actual play value rather than a number that value is extrapolated from. It was a thought experiment, though I kind of like the way it feels.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

It is hero system! Its just streamlined by using the OCV/DCV system for both characteristic rolls' date=' skills and combat, and expressing characteristics as their actual play value rather than a number that value is extrapolated from. It was a thought experiment, though I kind of like the way it feels.[/quote']

 

Ah, OK: I misunderstood your intention: I thought you were going for a more radical revision!

As I noted on another thread, I've done something like this (different presentation, but same intent) simplifying the presentation and the numbers for new players.

Some of those changes (like dropping normal END use) worked so well that I have adopted them for general play.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

We've still ended in the same place as the discussion did last time. You think because we have detailed rules for physical combat that we should have something analogous for non-combat interactions. I see no need' date=' nor understand why the one should imply the other. [/quote']

 

Because they are both conflicts. No? One uses words and one uses fisticuffs but they are both the application of skills that are seeking to get someone to do what they want.

 

To me it's like saying that because we have seagulls that fly through the air' date=' we should have seagulls that fly through the ground. Why?[/quote']

 

Dragged the analogy a bit far there Mark. ;-) I would say it is like saying because we have a movement system that allows a character to fly in the air that we should have a movement system that allows a character to move underground. Whether or not the player can. :-)

 

We do need a flexible and in-depth skills system (and fortunately we have one) but I am literally unable to conceive of any apriori reason it would be improved if it were more like the combat system. Nor can I conceive of any way in which that could be achieved without adding more complexity. Now possibly that's down to my feeble intellect ... but really' date=' I doubt that. I suspect it's because so far no-one has made a case for it[/quote']

 

We have a very simple and spartan skills system. it is broad but not deep. That works for cinematic stuff but the width of the skillset has begun to cause problems in games that I play because there are differing expectations between GMs of what is necessary to accomplish certain things. It was much more simple when all police skills came in PS: Policeman.

 

In a skill-based game the skills are much more up-front and more difficult to apply in an interesting way. And social skills have problems all their own. In all cases there is not the depth in the system to make the skill resolution much more than a few mostly unrelated rolls...while at the same time we have a fully fledged conflict resolution system used simply to decide whether someone lives or dies. :-)

 

We're thus left with the promise of - at best - added complexity for no added benefit.

 

And that is the real opinion part of your message. 'no added benefit'.

 

Real entrepreneurs (and game designers) do not simply provide the things that people say they want (the evolution of what they have seen before). They revolutionise things and show people that they need something today that they never concieved of a need for before that. :-)

 

I want revolution, not evolution in my gaming materials. Specially the APG type stuff...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mad Skills

 

We have a very simple and spartan skills system. it is broad but not deep. That works for cinematic stuff but the width of the skillset has begun to cause problems in games that I play because there are differing expectations between GMs of what is necessary to accomplish certain things. It was much more simple when all police skills came in PS: Policeman.

 

This is definitely an issue at present. Does PS: Scientist cover the skills required to build powered armor, or do you need PS: Lasers for the laser beam, PS: Aerodynamics for the boot jets, PS: Environment Control for Life Support, PS: Cryogenics for the freeze beams and so on? Can you have a KS, SS or PS for each one, or must you have both a Knowledge skill and a Professional skill to know the theory and apply it in practice? We had a poster some time back suggest that powered armor should require enough different skills to offset any point savings from the limitations on his powered armor.

 

In a skill-based game the skills are much more up-front and more difficult to apply in an interesting way. And social skills have problems all their own. In all cases there is not the depth in the system to make the skill resolution much more than a few mostly unrelated rolls...while at the same time we have a fully fledged conflict resolution system used simply to decide whether someone lives or dies. :-)

 

Hopefully, we're not going around the social skills aspect again. Clearly there are a lot of gamers who are OK with random dice rolls maiming or killing their character, but cannot abide the thought of similar rolls allowing someone to persuade them to take an action they would not take absent such persuasion.

 

Your thoughts on the skill system are similar to my own. There is no reason we cannot have the option for a simpler, quicker combat resolution system for any game where combat is not the focus, and should be resolved quickly when it arises. You have amazingly versatile and powerful Powered Armor? OK - buy +10 to your "Combat" skill. We don't need all the various combat powers for this game, as combat is not the focus of the game.

 

There is also no reason we cannot have the option for a more detailed and granular resolution system for non-combat activities than "make a roll", "make an opposed roll" or even "make a series of rolls". If the focus of the game is investigative, broaden out the options and resolution mechanics of investigative skills. If it's medical, let's broaden out the medical skills options.If we want a courtroom drama game, then let's expand on legal skills and resolution.

 

This is a tool currently missing from the toolkit. Ideally, I'd like it to work similarly to the existing detailed combat resolution system. Maybe it should be similar to the mental combat system or the PRE attack system. Maybe there's a much better way that is so superior to the combat model that it clearly should be the approach taken, despite being a brand new mechanic, although I would rather explore the possibilities of paralleling existing mechanics first. But some option should be there for those that wish to apply it in an appropriate game.

 

Real entrepreneurs (and game designers) do not simply provide the things that people say they want (the evolution of what they have seen before). They revolutionise things and show people that they need something today that they never concieved of a need for before that. :-)

 

Markdoc, you comment on the various house rules you used before they were part of the system. What did you play before the Hero system? Did you find it flawed? If so, why did you not fix it yourself, rather than wait for someone to publish the Hero system? If not, then at that time would you not have said what we have is good enough?

 

You comment on many of the existing choices being minor changes, but they can have a significant impact on game play. In 6e, I find hit locations make a killing attack a much more viable selection than if we are simply using a 1d3 Stun Multiple, for example. "Free gear" motivates gear-using characters much more than "pay points for everything". NCM changes characteristic vs skill level decisions dramatically.

 

Choosing to resolve skills in a more detailed, granular way would add another choice that changes the feel of the game, and the type of character builds that will be motivated. It should not be the default - we already have a default that works for many genres and most cinematic games. But it should be an option - even if it is an option you, personally, would not use.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Because they are both conflicts. No? One uses words and one uses fisticuffs but they are both the application of skills that are seeking to get someone to do what they want.

 

A dog and a whale are both mammals. That doesn't mean they are the same, or even terribly similar. I still remain unconvinced that a superficial similarity means that we should use similar systems. I understand the aesthetic appeal - but that's where it ends.

 

Dragged the analogy a bit far there Mark. ;-) I would say it is like saying because we have a movement system that allows a character to fly in the air that we should have a movement system that allows a character to move underground. Whether or not the player can. :-)

 

Whereas I'd say my analogy is far more accurate: the two things in my opinion are actually far more different than simply movement through different mediums.

 

 

We have a very simple and spartan skills system. it is broad but not deep. That works for cinematic stuff but the width of the skillset has begun to cause problems in games that I play because there are differing expectations between GMs of what is necessary to accomplish certain things. It was much more simple when all police skills came in PS: Policeman.

 

Shrug. That's entirely a GM call. If you want to make the skill system much deeper, the tools already lie to your hand. I have played in a game where police related skills were laid out in much more detail - probably because it was a police procedural game run by a former detective.

 

In a skill-based game the skills are much more up-front and more difficult to apply in an interesting way. And social skills have problems all their own. In all cases there is not the depth in the system to make the skill resolution much more than a few mostly unrelated rolls...while at the same time we have a fully fledged conflict resolution system used simply to decide whether someone lives or dies. :-)

 

Strange: I run a heavily skill focused game - have done so for years. We've never had any problem (indeed, until discussing this with you and Hugh it hadn't even occurred to the various groups I've run for or played in, that such a problem existed). The simple and elegant skill system we have now can be (and in our games often is) applied in an interesting way. It's also capable of as much (or as little) depth as the GM and players want to put into it. Now it is true that we never try the disconnected and annoyingly weird "I oppose his persuasion with KS: Early estruscan pottery!" thing that you can with some systems, but I regard that as a feature, not a bug.

 

And as for the lives and dies thing ... good. I'd want a fairly detailed system for something that can reliably have that sort of effect in very short time periods, just as I wouldn't want it for resolution of "soft" issues.

 

And that is the real opinion part of your message. 'no added benefit'.

 

Shucks, there was a lot more opinion than that!

 

Real entrepreneurs (and game designers) do not simply provide the things that people say they want (the evolution of what they have seen before). They revolutionise things and show people that they need something today that they never concieved of a need for before that. :-)

 

I want revolution, not evolution in my gaming materials. Specially the APG type stuff...

 

Then I'll say the same as I said to Hugh Go for it, laddie! Don't let me hold you back!

You will however, have to do it yourself, because, honestly, nobody else seems at all interested.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Mad Skills

 

Markdoc' date=' you comment on the various house rules you used before they were part of the system. What did you play before the Hero system? Did you find it flawed? If so, why did you not fix it yourself, rather than wait for someone to publish the Hero system? If not, then at that time would you not have said what we have is good enough?[/quote']

 

Of course, I played multiple systems (including homebrew) before and occasionally after Hero system. I've settled on Hero system, because it requires less tweaking than anything else I've played.

 

You comment on many of the existing choices being minor changes' date=' but they can have a significant impact on game play. In 6e, I find hit locations make a killing attack a much more viable selection than if we are simply using a 1d3 Stun Multiple, for example. "Free gear" motivates gear-using characters much more than "pay points for everything". NCM changes characteristic vs skill level decisions dramatically. [/quote']

 

True. Also, irrelevant.

 

Any GM setting decision can change how games play. But we were talking about character design/rules design. A character in a game using hit locations is built exactly the same way as one using 1d3 (indeed, the "standard" 1d3 is equivalen to the the GM saying "We are using hit locations, but all hits are torso hits". Works exactly the same.

 

Choosing to resolve skills in a more detailed' date=' granular way would add another choice that changes the feel of the game, and the type of character builds that will be motivated. It should not be the default - we already have a default that works for many genres and most cinematic games. But it should be an option - even if it is an option you, personally, would not use.[/quote']

 

Ah, but now you are suggesting something entirely different. A player can choose to build their character a variety of ways. They can't, however, choose to build them according to a different set of rules than the other players in the game. When you talk about developing a completely different resolution system, you're talking about changing the game, not offering options. As an example, I'll never use, as far as I can tell, the base-building rules. It doesn't bother me if other people do, because they're an option. They don't impact the way the game runs. Changing skills - something which isn't, in any realistic sense, an option - immediately fragments the game into two (or more) game systems: one that uses X and one that uses Y.

 

At any rate, I think I'm done here. We've had this discussion before and ended up where we are now. You think it might be a good idea. I think it would be a terrible idea. Neither of us seem likely to change our minds. And it's moot, if you are waiting for someone else to do it for you, because ... well, nobody actually seems to be interested in doing it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Mad Skills

 

A dog and a whale are both mammals. That doesn't mean they are the same' date=' or even terribly similar. I still remain unconvinced that a superficial similarity means that we should use similar systems. I understand the aesthetic appeal - but that's where it ends. [/quote']

 

It is this kind of stuff that interests me (game-tinkering wise). What is a role-playing game? What are the core elements? Obviously conflict resolution has to be core and there is no reason that conflicts have to be physically based...all in my not so humble opinion of course.

 

I will not however drag the thread down that esoteric and geeky path.

 

 

Doc