AGM Motion: Background Skills
Marios
(i) The background skill system doesn't work the way it was
originally designed to.
(ii) Background skills have no restriction, so it doesn't
really mean much to say that I have Lawyer V - anyone could spend 5 XP
and get Lawyer V as well.
Suggested new system for background skills:
===================================
(i) Background skills are 'consensual skills' - not game
mechanics, they don't force/require anyone to do anything. Like Track
- you can mention to a ref that you have Track and are looking for
Tracks - the ref may then take that into account when they decide
if/how much information to pass onto you. Equally, if you are having a
'Tracking match' with another character, you can mention that you have
Track 3 and they may decide that that means that you win (Note! They
would not be game mechanics or 'valid calls' - just an 'appeal for
information'). This is just a restatement of the definition of
background skills as they are now, just so it's clear that I'm not
suggesting that that change.
(ii) Backgrounds skills should cost 0 XP. Background skills
shouldn't be part of the 'mechanical' XP skill system. You don't
really want characters faced with a choice between background skills
and mechanic skills (even if it's only a few XP).
(iii) However, the number of background skills/lvl should be
restricted (so that characters are forced to specialise):
You can take 2 Background skills each level.
(v) Note : Background skills can have skill tree requirements
(set/changed by the interactive ref team). If you want to over-ride
these (and the ref team agrees that it's a appropriate) you can use up
2 Background skill slots to get a Background skills from a skill tree
you don't have.
(vi) Background skills can be taken again and again to
represent increasing levels of skill - Knot Tying, Knot Tying II, Knot
Tying III - these are consensual skills so no one is forced to obey
them in the strict form that mechanics have to be obeyed - e.g. a
Firedart is a demand that you will take a Half to your chest, not an
appeal. This basically allows for a 'freeform' consensual system, if
I've got Knot Tying and someone's tied me up with Knot Tying II, then
I may be inclined to say that I can't get free.
The best example I can think is Forgery. The refs can simply
compare the level of Forgery of the forger with the person who's
trying to tell if the document is authentic. If the player is actually
going to phys-rep the document, the refs can use the level of Forgery
to decide how much help they will give the player.
Another example of something that can be done with a
'freeform' consensual system - craft skills. The ref team/money ref
could allow people to take craft skills (to represent the fact that
they are an armour/a basket weaver) and take some small profit from
their craft based on their level in that craft.
(vii) All the previous background skills mentioned in the SBS
document stand, I'm only listing those which I think could/should be
moved into background skills
Background skills suggestions:
Literacy G
Numeracy G
Speak Other Language G
Read/Write Other Language G
Knot Tying S1
Pick Lock S1
Brawling S1/W1
Sun and Star Lore S1
Firelighting S1
Find Food and Water S1
Devise/Disarm Trap S5
Rec. Scent S1
Light Fingers S5
Forgery S1
Profession X G
Marios
renaud van-strydonck
I'm loathe to say this, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Especially
if we're attempting to homogenize the rule system but also because it is
dangerously vague.
I mean, we have enough difficulties working with the rules that 'demand'
for things to happen without adding a level of 'appeal' to the game.
This looks suspiciously like one of those works-only-on-non-munchkins
things you were writing about a while ago.
Not to mention the fact that, before we start adding perks to pick every
level, we may want to ensure that we are happy with the cost of skills
in the first place (which we're clearly not sure about).
Why don't we make them cheap, like 1 or 2 Xp each, and just say you
can't double buy? It achieves a similar effect without adding a new
level to the character development system and it means that characters
who want to spend their Xp on background can.
I mean, it's their prerogative, right?
The Refs have already been phaffing with a Background skill system that
looked okay. Every level of a background skill basically represented 2-3
year degree of experience in the topic.
Most people don't buy background skills because they're not imediately
useful... but I've never felt bad about buying them, it's another level
to the character. It's not a waste of Xp.
We don't want to stop the characters playing Jacks of All Trades etc.
That's about all I've got time for.
Renaud
Marcus Rich
>
> Literacy G
> Numeracy G
> Speak Other Language G
> Read/Write Other Language G
>
> Knot Tying S1
> Pick Lock S1
> Brawling S1/W1
>
> Sun and Star Lore S1
> Firelighting S1
> Find Food and Water S1
> Devise/Disarm Trap S5
> Rec. Scent S1
> Light Fingers S5
>
> Forgery S1
>
> Profession X G
Ummm, what do "G", "S1", "S5", and "W1" stand for????
Are they meant to show links, i.e. General, Scout1/5, Warrior, cos in that
case put them in the relevant skill lists not as background where people
will get confused...
Background skills should be skills *anyone* could have, you don't have to
be a scout or warrior to know how to fist-fight after all, even peasants
can do that...
Marcus
---
"I'm not lost, I just haven't pinpointed exactly where we are at the
moment" - Belgarath The Sorceror
Marcus Rich
d j d harris
skills, however i agree that certain areas of this basic idea need to be
looked at.
i like the idea of background as background in which case they
should be an appeal based system for the refs. however as the term
background implies this should be done in the background ie they should
only really have an effect in down time. i like the idea of things like
the knot tying scene - however like renaud says this cannot be done
without vast bitching if its allowed to interfere in P V P or players V
monsters in interactives or adventures. Anything that can be used in
these situations but arent used frequently should be either got rid of
for simplicity or changed to low Ex based skills.
i like the idea that there is say 2 background skills a level that
people can choose. it means players will be encouraged to think what
that character is good at, gives everyone a little bonus to play with
that is useful in fleshing out the character but not a function of the
thus/sat mechanics. if background are kept strictly for downtime it will
encourage downtime which is nice ( not for the refs but they like being
dicked on really).
there is no need to add the extra complexity of a skill tree for
background. they dont need another machanic but could and should be used
to help flag up the actions in down time that characters may want to do.
by showing the refs that the character has such and such it gives them
something to base their decisions around ( other than just getting drunk
and wanting to wrap up the tuesday meeting as quickly as possible).
basically, its a really good idea that will encourage depth and
background at the moment does seem like the strange uncle that lurks in
the corner of the party. however any new solution shouldnt interfere
with up time because it would result in bitching and faff
cheers
j d mcgettrick
Marcus Rich wrote:
>>Background skills suggestions:
>>
>>Literacy G
>>Numeracy G
>>Speak Other Language G
>>Read/Write Other Language G
>>
>>Knot Tying S1
>>Pick Lock S1
>>Brawling S1/W1
>>
>>Sun and Star Lore S1
>>Firelighting S1
>>Find Food and Water S1
>>Devise/Disarm Trap S5
>>Rec. Scent S1
>>Light Fingers S5
>>
>>Forgery S1
>>
>>Profession X G
>
>
> Ummm, what do "G", "S1", "S5", and "W1" stand for????
>
> Are they meant to show links, i.e. General, Scout1/5, Warrior, cos in that
> case put them in the relevant skill lists not as background where people
> will get confused...
>
> Background skills should be skills *anyone* could have, you don't have to
> be a scout or warrior to know how to fist-fight after all, even peasants
> can do that...
Indeed, but think at higher levels.
Dark Planar Lore
Light Cavalry Battle Tactics
Church History
Siege Engineering
Theology
City Geography
Durholme Sewer Lore
Combatting Merfolk
Piracy (arrrr)
Brewing
Egyptian Trade Lore
Etiquette of S. Wessex
Caber-tossing
Inter-clan Lore of Northern Picts
Necromatic Ritual Lore...
etc.
et.c
e.tc
.etc
--
Jimbob!
*hyperfluffiness is a state of mind*
Marcus Rich
> people can choose. it means players will be encouraged to think what
> that character is good at, gives everyone a little bonus to play with
> that is useful in fleshing out the character but not a function of the
> thus/sat mechanics. if background are kept strictly for downtime it will
> encourage downtime which is nice ( not for the refs but they like being
> dicked on really).
OK, Mr Grunt is in the bar, and has brought his two background skills for
the level, say horse riding and star lore...
all of a sudden there's a mssive surge in the number of elves of a
particular language, and he decides it's useful to learn their language...
but wait... he's bought his two backgrounds for the level already...
and so, in order to learn their language he has to go do some completely
unconnected random adventures to earn XP...
From people who are arguing that we need more realism, this is a strange
outlook... people *can* learn several things...
What I'd suggest is two free backrounds per level if this is still
popular, but a provision to buy more at an increasing XP cost per
background.
Marcus Rich
If they take the time to learn about it...
> Light Cavalry Battle Tactics
If they've picked up some relevant experience or practice, or spent long
enough reading the textbooks...
> Church History
If they are a member of that church it's reasonable to assume they have it
(hell, I know a fair bit about the RC church history and I'm not a priest)
> Siege Engineering
etc
> Theology
> City Geography
Sure, if they've been in Durholme a few months it's reasonable they'd have
some knowledge of this...
> Durholme Sewer Lore
> Combatting Merfolk
> Piracy (arrrr)
> Brewing
> Egyptian Trade Lore
if they've been to Egyptus, came from there, or spent a while chatting
with someone who was...
> Etiquette of S. Wessex
why not.. it's hardly made secret, anyone can wander down and find out...
> Caber-tossing
pick it up, lob it, repeat until you don't break your arms trying...
> Inter-clan Lore of Northern Picts
> Necromatic Ritual Lore...
None of these skills *require* to be put into a "class", the levels idea
I'm a fan of, and the ref team have (i seem to remember) been implementing
something of this kind recently within certain crafts...
They are all skills that *anyone* can learn, be they priest, mage,
warrior, scout, (see we're still using classes). Any literate can go read
some texts on cavalry tactics, or learn how to throw a stick...
Marcus "fighting for more realism" Rich
renaud van-strydonck
j d mcgettrick
In the case of some of those skills you do have a point - but not in all.
For sake of simplicity, I'll give a *real world* example. Sure _in theory_ anyone can learn the ins
and outs of plasma deposition techniques [the subject of my PhD]. But they'd require a whole
background in Chemistry/Physics - certainly to degree level. To even reach that point, you've got to
have a good understanding of very basic concepts and reactions [Good A-level
maths/physics/chemistry]. Now I'm an academic. I read and do research. Anyone _can_ learn my stuff,
but the vast majority of people don't. Would it be realistic for a biologist to have a background in
plasma deposition techniques? Not really, but they could get one by applying themselves to the
science - they've probably got a decent grounding in chemistry anyway. Now consider a philosopher -
equally capable _in theory_ of understanding my subject - they'd have to start at an even lower
level. How can they possibly understand advanced chemistry without having carefully worked through
the lower levels?
Now consider the case of Dark Planar Lore. Sure _in theory_ anyone can research information on this
subject. But surely they'd require at least a basic background in magical theory to understand what
they were reading? And possibly - due to the nature of planes etc - alot of experience working with
dark magic?
Brewing - never was there a skill more obviously suited to skilled alchemists.
Necromantic Ritual Lore - sure you wouldn't need to be a member of the church of humackt to research
this, but are you going to fully understand such a dark subject without a grounding in the inner
workings of being a priest? Possbily, but its stretching things.
I'm not buying that a peasant on the street could walk up to a castle during a siege and become a
siege engineer either. I can see how a peasant would aquire knowledge of siege engineering though -
by being drafted into an army and taught it alongside how to fire a bow etc.
Remember that taking a level of elemental skill or warrior or scout or thief or whatever represents
alot of hard work and experience on behalf of the character. Is it unrealistic to tie in knowing
certain very specialist skills with having the basic skillset that that skill would require? No. 'I
don't need warrior to buy fitness' is a horrible thing to contemplate.
I like the background skill idea because it will encourage people to take more of them!
marios richards
> I'm loathe to say this, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Especially
> if we're attempting to homogenize the rule system but also because it is
> dangerously vague.
I see what you mean - but I think it's better to polarise the skills
into Mechanical/Non-Mechanical than to leave them as smear across the
two. For a start - moving some of those skills to 'Non-Mechanical'
allows us to ditch unworkable/ineffective mechanics - less mechanics for
people to learn.
> I mean, we have enough difficulties working with the rules that 'demand'
> for things to happen without adding a level of 'appeal' to the game.
> This looks suspiciously like one of those works-only-on-non-munchkins
> things you were writing about a while ago.
A number of parts of the game already rely on 'appeal'.
Your right - it would only work on someone willing to play along with
you. But I think it's more honest/clearer to admit that these skills
require collaboration either player to player or player to ref, than to
pretend they don't.
If you have to implement a mechanic to cover all these situations, you
will just sink under an ocean of heuristics.
> Not to mention the fact that, before we start adding perks to pick every
> level, we may want to ensure that we are happy with the cost of skills
> in the first place (which we're clearly not sure about).
I don't understand.
> Why don't we make them cheap, like 1 or 2 Xp each, and just say you
> can't double buy? It achieves a similar effect without adding a new
> level to the character development system and it means that characters
> who want to spend their Xp on background can.
> I mean, it's their prerogative, right?
The more you have of something, the less meaningful it becomes.
I see what you mean - these skills would still be Background skills in
the sense that they don't 'command', they 'appeal'. It's important that
people realise that or they may be upset/disappointed (happened when
first the SBS came out).
> The Refs have already been phaffing with a Background skill system that
> looked okay. Every level of a background skill basically represented 2-3
> year degree of experience in the topic.
The background skill system has been largely ignored for the last 5
years. The refs are doing stuff with it (very recent development) - but
otherwise I wouldn't consider that the system works (although you'd have
to say what you meant by 'works').
> Most people don't buy background skills because they're not imediately
> useful... but I've never felt bad about buying them, it's another level
> to the character. It's not a waste of Xp.
> We don't want to stop the characters playing Jacks of All Trades etc.
I think my suggestion still allows for Jack of All Trades - a little
background skill in everything - just take very vague background skills.
They'd have some very minimal application to everything. So - you know a
little of everything, but specialise in nothing.
To be honest, there's no clear statement of what background skills are
supposed to achieve. If it's just 'character flavouring' then both
systems work fine.
I'm really just seeing background skills as a place to put titchy skils
with no or little 'command' element. Pulling them out of the main SBS
will clear up some of the faff. If I can rehabilitate the rarely use
Background Skill system (which really is separate from the 'command'
SBS) then I see that as good as well.
Marios
marios richards
> Are they meant to show links, i.e. General, Scout1/5, Warrior, cos in that
> case put them in the relevant skill lists not as background where people
> will get confused...
It doesn't seem to have confused you - even without a key, you guessed
what it meant.
Properly written up, with a key/legend, there's no danger of confusion
([requires Wilderfuge V]).
> Background skills should be skills *anyone* could have, you don't have to
> be a scout or warrior to know how to fist-fight after all, even peasants
> can do that...
Well, that's part of the definition I'm suggesting we should change.
Why do you think that background skills so be completely open to all?
Also, I included a 'mini-mechanic' for people to take 'class
restricted' skills who don't have the classes.
Marios
Marcus Rich
So do I! That's what I was arguing for! I agree entirely with the idea of
"levels" of knowledge. It *is* unreasonable for me to understand your PhD
topic, but if I were to learn the fundamentals (low level background) and
then work up to the more advanced stuff (medium and high level background)
it's feasible I could understand it, however I don't have to be a
biologist to do this, indeed I'm a half compsci half historian...
My point was against the limitation of backgrounds to classes of
character...
Marcus
Tag
> I like the background skill idea because it will encourage people to
> take more of them!
I think it definitely needs to accompany background skills buyable with
XP though; some people just know about more stuff than others, maybe
because they've spent less time learning _skills_.
Taking my characters, Tullis, for example, is/was a city guard - that's
pretty much it. His character sheet says he's a fighter, and he pretty
much is. He's got a background skill in Durholme Law, but not a lot
else.
Tag, on the other hand, is basically a bard. He's got all these skills
like magic and a bit of scoutery, but what he spends most of his time
doing has nothing to do with any of them. Accordingly, he has whole
rafts of background skills in music, singing, playing an instrument,
drama...
Will is the same. In core character sheet, he's almost identical to
Tullis. In character, he's very different, and a lot more of his
character is in the extra things he knows. It's right that he should
have more background skills than Tullis; and should probably pay for
them.
I'm quite tempted to go through all the things marked 'lore' in the
skills list and gradually buy them - not because I want to make potions,
or know the time, or anything, but to reflect the fact that Will just
Knows Stuff :-)
Tag
=-=
--
[ In Aid Of Grandmas ]
: Tag : fu...@durge.org : http://www.durge.org/~fudge/ :
marios richards
> i like the idea of background as background in which case they should
> be an appeal based system for the refs. however as the term background
> implies this should be done in the background ie they should only really
> have an effect in down time. i like the idea of things like the knot
> tying scene - however like renaud says this cannot be done without vast
> bitching if its allowed to interfere in P V P or players V monsters in
> interactives or adventures. Anything that can be used in these
> situations but arent used frequently should be either got rid of for
> simplicity or changed to low Ex based skills.
Ok - I'll rewrite for a sharper distinction and drop some of the more
'uptime' skills.
Got rid of is the best choice for simplicity.
> i like the idea that there is say 2 background skills a level that
> people can choose. it means players will be encouraged to think what
> that character is good at, gives everyone a little bonus to play with
> that is useful in fleshing out the character but not a function of the
> thus/sat mechanics. if background are kept strictly for downtime it will
> encourage downtime which is nice ( not for the refs but they like being
> dicked on really).
Renaud brought up 'Sages' - people with all their XP as background
skills. I'm trying to think how to easily work it in. Probably just
allowing people to buy extra backgrouns skills if they are really
desperate (perhaps at a 5XP cost - refs are more inclined to have the
skill do something for 5XP and characters who aren't sages are more
inclined to stay with just the 2 background skills a level).
> there is no need to add the extra complexity of a skill tree for
> background. they dont need another machanic but could and should be used
> to help flag up the actions in down time that characters may want to do.
> by showing the refs that the character has such and such it gives them
> something to base their decisions around ( other than just getting drunk
> and wanting to wrap up the tuesday meeting as quickly as possible).
I agree. I put that in because people were complaining that moving the
scout skills to background use opens them to use by all classes. I don't
really have a problem with that - refs can make lvl 6 scout downtimes
feel more 'scouty' than lvl 6 fighters, no problem.
But I put that mechanic in to solve that problem. Since I don't think
it is a problem, I'll happily revise that.
> basically, its a really good idea that will encourage depth and
> background at the moment does seem like the strange uncle that lurks in
> the corner of the party. however any new solution shouldnt interfere
> with up time because it would result in bitching and faff
Background skills do get some uptime use - but, very specifically!,
they are 'appeal-only'/'consensual' skills. This - to me - seems like a
fine description of Track, Sun and Star Lore, Find Food and Water and
maybe Firelighting (at least, non-phys-repped Firelighting).
Marios
j d mcgettrick
Marcus Rich wrote:
>>I like the background skill idea because it will encourage people to take more of them!
>
>
> So do I! That's what I was arguing for! I agree entirely with the idea of
> "levels" of knowledge. It *is* unreasonable for me to understand your PhD
> topic, but if I were to learn the fundamentals (low level background) and
> then work up to the more advanced stuff (medium and high level background)
> it's feasible I could understand it, however I don't have to be a
> biologist to do this, indeed I'm a half compsci half historian...
>
> My point was against the limitation of backgrounds to classes of
> character...
>
But Marios' post does include a mechanic for that:
"(v) Note : Background skills can have skill tree requirements
(set/changed by the interactive ref team). If you want to over-ride
these (and the ref team agrees that it's a appropriate) you can use up
2 Background skill slots to get a Background skills from a skill tree
you don't have."
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I didn't see what else you could be making a point against...
j d mcgettrick
marios richards wrote:
>
> Renaud brought up 'Sages' - people with all their XP as background
> skills. I'm trying to think how to easily work it in. Probably just
> allowing people to buy extra backgrouns skills if they are really
> desperate (perhaps at a 5XP cost - refs are more inclined to have the
> skill do something for 5XP and characters who aren't sages are more
> inclined to stay with just the 2 background skills a level).
>
Give some backgrounds a skill prerequisite. Eg. Lores need Literacy or the relevant skill.
marios richards
> all of a sudden there's a mssive surge in the number of elves of a
> particular language, and he decides it's useful to learn their language...
> but wait... he's bought his two backgrounds for the level already...
>
> and so, in order to learn their language he has to go do some completely
> unconnected random adventures to earn XP...
That's the stupid thing about an XP system - you're a mage who should
be spending his time studying books and doing arcane rituals - but
instead you advance by standing at the back of character parties killing
goblins. You have to assume that you are also doing something meaningful
and appropriate in downtime.
> From people who are arguing that we need more realism, this is a strange
> outlook... people *can* learn several things...
But it takes time! Is there really a problem with waiting until the
next level before completing your learning of the skill?
> What I'd suggest is two free backrounds per level if this is still
> popular, but a provision to buy more at an increasing XP cost per
> background.
Yeah, that's cool - but only if it's semi-prohibitive (I don't mean
weak - just in large chunks ~5/10XP).
Marios
Marcus Rich
Because of the word "background"... It's something I'm doing in the
background of the game, like reading up on tactics (why the hell should
this require I be a trained fighter?????), or learning where the stars are
(I must be a scout for this WHY?)
Background is the perfect way to customise the skillset of your characters
to get them away from the "class" they may be branded as... a mage who has
background in firelighting and starlore, but also in tactics and
philosophy, is less of a "mage" and more of a "character".
> Also, I included a 'mini-mechanic' for people to take 'class
> restricted' skills who don't have the classes.
Sorry, where was it? (not meant as a jab, I honestly don't see it)
h l vaughan
of backgroud skills in unarmed combat, wrestling, martial arts (cliche
but people want such things) etc to give a clear cut winner in any pit
fights for example. previously I know levels of fitness and fortitude
have been used, but knowlege and skill are ultimately much more powerful
than raw strength.
Owen
ps the point I was originally going to make: the brawling skill allows
the player to use improvised weaponary in a fight (assuming LARP safty
requirements) and to call subdual damamge with such weaponary. ie
subdue 1/2. (though odds are you'd be butchered for making the call
whilst people will happilly throw themselves around a room when no
dammage is being called.
Tag
> The best example I can think is Forgery. The refs can simply
> compare the level of Forgery of the forger with the person who's
> trying to tell if the document is authentic. If the player is actually
> going to phys-rep the document, the refs can use the level of Forgery
> to decide how much help they will give the player.
Yes; that's agreement between *the refs* and a player. That's fine.
Agreement between player and player is very different; and that's what
moving some of these to consensual does.
> Literacy G
Someone writes something, and you can only read it if the writer agrees?
Or do you have to get a ref to find out if you can read?
> Numeracy G
You can only count if the people being counted agree?
Actually, I strongly disagree with making these any cheaper; if
anything, they should be a LOT more expensive. That's a part of the
problem with all these fighters-who-have-only-warrior-skills-but-are-
nevertheless-curiously-knowledgable; we make the core knowledge skills
very cheap, so everyone has them. I'd like to see most fighters not
being able to read, maybe not count either. If they can read, they're a
"multiclass" fighter/clerk, and their amount of XP fighting skills
should suffer for it.
The _average_ mediaeval longbowman shot with a pull of around 90lb. The
average modern *Olympic* archer, taller, better-nourished and with
better training facilities, uses a draw of 50lb. Why? Because mediaeval
bowmen were brought up to do that from a young age, and essentially
dedicated their lives to it. Whereas we spend most of our first 16 years
learning to read, write, add up, do geography, history... We take
literacy and numeracy for granted because we are all highly trained in
them, not because they're easy.
And these years of learning are represented by a measly *two* XP per
skill? When a level of first aid about equivalent to a one-day course
costs 10 XP? Pah!
> Speak Other Language G
> Read/Write Other Language G
Again. I spent years trying to do these two and still can't do them to
any degree. 1XP? Pah!
> Knot Tying S1
"You're tying me up? Ah right. While you go off and get your friends to
kill me? Oh... funnily enough, though I have no knot-related abilities
your knot-tying proves not to have worked this time. I think I'll run
away now."
> Pick Lock S1
Mmm, yeah, OK, you need a ref for this anyway as a lock will almost
never be properly physrepped.
> Brawling S1/W1
Fine, yeah. It's not a skill that really lets you DO anything.
> Sun and Star Lore S1
> Firelighting S1
> Find Food and Water S1
> Devise/Disarm Trap S5
> Rec. Scent S1
> Light Fingers S5
Yeah, ditto for pretty much all of these. They don't really give you
any _ability_, just a greater chance of letting you do something that
involves no other person.
> Forgery S1
> Profession X G
Yeah, these are probably OK.
Tag
=-=
--
[ love gets kinda crazy with a spooky little boy like you ]
: Tag : fu...@durge.org : http://www.durge.org/~fudge/ :
Marios
>no skill is required for fist fighting. you could take advanced levels
>of backgroud skills in unarmed combat, wrestling, martial arts (cliche
>but people want such things) etc to give a clear cut winner in any pit
>fights for example. previously I know levels of fitness and fortitude
>have been used, but knowlege and skill are ultimately much more powerful
>than raw strength.
Yes - I thought rought-trade pit fighters would appreciate
being able to buy Brawling I, II ... to decide who wins the bout.
>ps the point I was originally going to make: the brawling skill allows
>the player to use improvised weaponary in a fight (assuming LARP safty
>requirements) and to call subdual damamge with such weaponary. ie
>subdue 1/2. (though odds are you'd be butchered for making the call
>whilst people will happilly throw themselves around a room when no
>dammage is being called.
Wow! That's obscure!
Marios
Marios
>> Why do you think that background skills so be completely open to all?
>
>Because of the word "background"... It's something I'm doing in the
>background of the game, like reading up on tactics (why the hell should
>this require I be a trained fighter?????), or learning where the stars are
>(I must be a scout for this WHY?)
Why do you need to be an Alchemist to mix potions? You put the
green stuff with the red stuff and voila - potion. Surely you'd just
get someone who already knew how to do it to explain it to you, step
by step (maybe writing it down).
I don't see that background implies 'fully open to all'.
>> Also, I included a 'mini-mechanic' for people to take 'class
>> restricted' skills who don't have the classes.
>
>Sorry, where was it? (not meant as a jab, I honestly don't see it)
Ah, well, that explains your confusion! Point (v).
Marios
Marios
>> Literacy G
>
>Someone writes something, and you can only read it if the writer agrees?
>Or do you have to get a ref to find out if you can read?
>
>> Numeracy G
>
>You can only count if the people being counted agree?
>
>Actually, I strongly disagree with making these any cheaper; if
>anything, they should be a LOT more expensive. That's a part of the
>problem with all these fighters-who-have-only-warrior-skills-but-are-
>nevertheless-curiously-knowledgable; we make the core knowledge skills
>very cheap, so everyone has them. I'd like to see most fighters not
>being able to read, maybe not count either. If they can read, they're a
>"multiclass" fighter/clerk, and their amount of XP fighting skills
>should suffer for it.
I agree. I still think you could have these as background
skills, their meaning and intent being pretty clear, but I also like
the idea of increasing their cost so that everyone in this medieval
society isn't literate/numerate.
I would be inclined to suggest increasing the cost of Numeracy
and Literacy to 10 XP each and reducing Spiritual Awakening/Elemental
Theory to 4 XP each (Note : Spiritual Awakening and Elemental Theory
would require Numeracy and Literacy - they are supposed to now, but
it's not one of those things that's well policed ---> probably
something to put in the errata, that).
>The _average_ mediaeval longbowman shot with a pull of around 90lb. The
>average modern *Olympic* archer, taller, better-nourished and with
>better training facilities, uses a draw of 50lb. Why? Because mediaeval
>bowmen were brought up to do that from a young age, and essentially
>dedicated their lives to it. Whereas we spend most of our first 16 years
>learning to read, write, add up, do geography, history... We take
>literacy and numeracy for granted because we are all highly trained in
>them, not because they're easy.
I agree (English bowmen have very obvious skeletons - their
entire body is warped and bent by continual bow use).
>And these years of learning are represented by a measly *two* XP per
>skill? When a level of first aid about equivalent to a one-day course
>costs 10 XP? Pah!
>
>> Speak Other Language G
>> Read/Write Other Language G
>
>Again. I spent years trying to do these two and still can't do them to
>any degree. 1XP? Pah!
Based on their prior usefulness these two definitely deserve
to become background skills.
If we were to up the cost of Numeracy and Literacy and the
world were written up properly with only a few languages (I've not
read the language section of the World Description, so I don't know if
this has already been accomplished - either way, takes time for it to
trickle through) e.g. 5-6 and refs start to use them rigorously on
adventures then it be worth marketing these as actual 'skill' at about
5XP each.
Note: Any non-Durholme born character would only have their
native language as standard.
>> Knot Tying S1
>
>"You're tying me up? Ah right. While you go off and get your friends to
>kill me? Oh... funnily enough, though I have no knot-related abilities
>your knot-tying proves not to have worked this time. I think I'll run
>away now."
Certainly a more honest description of how it works. If I'm
'knotted' and then 'find a stone' on the ground and use it to 'slice
through the bonds', how have I done anything different?
Bottom-line, people either play with you or not on these
non-command skills.
>> Pick Lock S1
>
>Mmm, yeah, OK, you need a ref for this anyway as a lock will almost
>never be properly physrepped.
I wavered both ways, but realised that there would always be a
ref there. Without the ref, you would only be able to do it using OOC
skills (jam a bit of metal in it, waggle it about).
>> Brawling S1/W1
>
>Fine, yeah. It's not a skill that really lets you DO anything.
I really like it - but it is an 'appeal' for the person to
reel back and roleplay pain/surprise. Note: You can't even break a
vocal with this (unless they choose to accept it).
Marios
Marcus Rich
> next level before completing your learning of the skill?
OK, but if I was to play a 120XP character in the bar constantly, it would
take me 15 weeks to learn how to speak another language etc, i.e. about 4
months...
It shouldn't really take all that long to learn the basics (hello, how are
you, etc), and going on random adventures really shouldn't help the
process...
Marcus Rich
> green stuff with the red stuff and voila - potion. Surely you'd just
> get someone who already knew how to do it to explain it to you, step
> by step (maybe writing it down).
Cool, so you agree with me then...
> I don't see that background implies 'fully open to all'.
>
> >> Also, I included a 'mini-mechanic' for people to take 'class
> >> restricted' skills who don't have the classes.
> >
> >Sorry, where was it? (not meant as a jab, I honestly don't see it)
>
> Ah, well, that explains your confusion! Point (v).
> Marios
Thanks, when I have a free half hour I'll get round to reading all the
propositions fully...
Can we start having motions in for the AGM, to allow amendments, as it's
getting close enough to make the NG a pointless place to propose them...
Marios
>> Why do you need to be an Alchemist to mix potions? You put the
>> green stuff with the red stuff and voila - potion. Surely you'd just
>> get someone who already knew how to do it to explain it to you, step
>> by step (maybe writing it down).
>
>Cool, so you agree with me then...
Um ... No. Since the same argument can be applied to almost
every skill in the game - Magic, just speaking words learnt from a
book - Spirit, just asking gods for stuff, surely they listen to
everyone? - Warrior, just a set of techniques, swinging a sword like
in this illistration, doing these excercises every morning like on
page 129.
It's a fine argument to push if you want a skill-less system
(e.g. all skill are background skills - flavour only).
>Can we start having motions in for the AGM, to allow amendments, as it's
>getting close enough to make the NG a pointless place to propose them...
Motions where? Webpage? Mailing List?
I'd like to see (or do it myself) a list of what people are
actually going to propose by Wednesday, so that Tim can send it out on
Thursday.
I still don't see any motions about the armour system. In
brief, the pyramidal system is too complicated and the regenerative
system is too gross - there was lots of fuss about this last term, but
I've not seen anything about it this term.
Marios
Marios
>> But it takes time! Is there really a problem with waiting until the
>> next level before completing your learning of the skill?
>
>OK, but if I was to play a 120XP character in the bar constantly, it would
>take me 15 weeks to learn how to speak another language etc, i.e. about 4
>months...
It's true, but that seems reasonable. If you want to develop
your skills faster, then you could always take a risk and go on an
adventure.
>It shouldn't really take all that long to learn the basics (hello, how are
>you, etc), and going on random adventures really shouldn't help the
>process...
Eh? Who said Speak Orc gives you the basics? We don't mess
around with Speak Orc Basic, Intermediate, Advanced!
By the time you have Speak Orc, you can speak it as well as
anyone else - isn't that pretty damn fast for 4 months?
Marios
ora...@hotmail.com
complex mechanics.
I'd suggest simply stating that characters can take 2 background
skills per level. As they will generally be used for adjudicated
actions, refs can decide whether a character with 'dark planar lore'
but no other magic skills knows enough knowldge for the particular
situation. Hopefully, they will credit a character who also has four
levels of 'planar research' as more thoroughly grounded in the skill.
I'd expect most characters to take background skills as their
profession - whcih could be 'scout', 'thief', 'cobbler' - and possibly
local lore of some sort, or a prefered specialism.
I don't see any need to define a 'skill tree'. complex, unnecessary
and restrictive. but i do like the idea of 2 background skills per
level at 0XP. who could object to that? Save XP for buying game
mechanic stuff.
Marcus Rich
> and restrictive. but i do like the idea of 2 background skills per
> level at 0XP. who could object to that? Save XP for buying game
> mechanic stuff.
Would you agree then in keeping stuff that actually has direct use (such
as languages etc) be kept as a game mechanic skill? I'm concerned about
hte 2-backgrounds-per-level-stop effect messing around what people would
have their character do in interactive situations (i.e. learning
languages)...
Marios
>> I don't see any need to define a 'skill tree'. complex, unnecessary
>> and restrictive. but i do like the idea of 2 background skills per
>> level at 0XP. who could object to that? Save XP for buying game
>> mechanic stuff.
>
>Would you agree then in keeping stuff that actually has direct use (such
>as languages etc) be kept as a game mechanic skill? I'm concerned about
>hte 2-backgrounds-per-level-stop effect messing around what people would
>have their character do in interactive situations (i.e. learning
>languages)...
Is it more realistic for a someone to learn 5 languages fully
in one evening at a bar (even one week) or for them to learn one
language fully over the course of 4 months?
Marios
ora...@hotmail.com
> as languages etc) be kept as a game mechanic skill? I'm concerned about
> hte 2-backgrounds-per-level-stop effect messing around what people would
> have their character do in interactive situations (i.e. learning
> languages)...
>
no
mainly 'cos background skills really represent stuff that's not a big
IC mechanic and which takes time to acquire.
however, if there is no change: always keep a few XP unspent in case
you meet someone (or some scroll) in a language i can't read. also
useful for insta-spending on lore skills.
Marios
"No matter what was thrown at him, he always seemed to have
read up on just that subject the very night before..."
Marios
Alasdair MacLeod
> I'd like to see most fighters not
> being able to read, maybe not count either. If they can read, they're a
> "multiclass" fighter/clerk, and their amount of XP fighting skills
> should suffer for it.
Ooh, there's an idea. Have a "Clerk" (Bard?) skill set, with literacy,
numeracy, languages, evaluate, lores, all that tosh. A pure Clerk would be
rubbish in terms of adventure practicality (compared to a mage or fighter)
but if a warrior wants to read then he has to multiclass.
Al, mean .-.
--
Sig missing. Reward for capture. Thanks.
http://www.north5.demon.co.uk/al/
Marios
>> I'd like to see most fighters not
>> being able to read, maybe not count either. If they can read, they're a
>> "multiclass" fighter/clerk, and their amount of XP fighting skills
>> should suffer for it.
>
>Ooh, there's an idea. Have a "Clerk" (Bard?) skill set, with literacy,
>numeracy, languages, evaluate, lores, all that tosh. A pure Clerk would be
>rubbish in terms of adventure practicality (compared to a mage or fighter)
>but if a warrior wants to read then he has to multiclass.
If you're feeling bored have a look at
http://www.midgard-larp.net/ .
Notice what they have that we don't (I don't mean the broken
magic system, we've got one of those too) - Social Skills. Very nice.
But, yes, a Sage skill set would be good - there's quite a few
people who want to play them. To be honest, about half of the pure
mages/priests/alchemists are basically people who want to play
Sage-type characters.
I'm inclined to propose that:
Literacy --->10XP
Numeracy ---> 10XP
Reducing Elemental Theory and Spiritual Awakening to 4 XP
each, but they both require Numeracy and Literacy.
Other appropriate abilties could also require Literacy and
Numeracy (like read/speak other languages, Alchemy requires Numeracy
and Literacy or Wilderfuge III).
Opens a nice gulf between Literati and Fytors.
Marios
d g james
Marios wrote:
> Dear Helen
>
>
>>no skill is required for fist fighting. you could take advanced levels
>>of backgroud skills in unarmed combat, wrestling, martial arts (cliche
>>but people want such things) etc to give a clear cut winner in any pit
>>fights for example. previously I know levels of fitness and fortitude
>>have been used, but knowlege and skill are ultimately much more powerful
>>than raw strength.
>
>
> Yes - I thought rought-trade pit fighters would appreciate
> being able to buy Brawling I, II ... to decide who wins the bout.
>
Actually, there is a whole new set of rules for working out who wins pit
fights based on about a dozen factors. These should (hopefully) be
applied at the next pit fight.
--
Later, back in reality...
ora...@hotmail.com
>
> ps the point I was originally going to make: the brawling skill allows
> the player to use improvised weaponary in a fight (assuming LARP safty
> requirements) and to call subdual damamge with such weaponary. ie
> subdue 1/2. (though odds are you'd be butchered for making the call
> whilst people will happilly throw themselves around a room when no
> dammage is being called.
>
"The character is able to engage in a 'bar room brawl' using natural
and improvised weaponry. All damage is knockback/subdual. Natural
weapon blows (fist, feet, etc) should not come closer than 6" of
target, and are called (eg, fist to face) rather than struck."
Um, 'brawling' was written specifically as a skill to allow fist
fighting!
the intent of this skill was that it would be used in 'bar room brawl'
type fights - ie, beating folk up rather than trying to kill people.
the 'subdual' term in the description was to emphasis that no 'real'
damage was done. no damage degree was specified 'cos 'bar room brawls'
were really freeform fights. 'pit fights' are the modern equivalent of
the old bar room brawls!
x
si
Marios
>Actually, there is a whole new set of rules for working out who wins pit
>fights based on about a dozen factors. These should (hopefully) be
>applied at the next pit fight.
There's 12 different kinds of beer? What a world...
Marios