From: picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu (Jeffrey Johnson)
Subject: Re: Y/TCT Response
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu
Organization: F.S.U. Dept of Physics
Distribution:  world
Date:  5 NOV 92 08:25:23    

In article <1992Nov4.202359.15936@news.columbia.edu>, jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes...
>picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu writes:
>>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes... 

[Stuff Deleted]

>>True, direct comparisons are easier with some skills than with others (which
>>is harder, basket weaving or macrame? :^)  ), but if your system does not
>>use too many difficulty levels for learning skills, you should be able to 
>>get most people to agree on what category a skill belongs in.  For example,
>>if you use "easy" "average" and "hard" as your categories, it won't be nearly
>>as hard to get people to agree on how difficult a skill is as it would be if
>>you used 10 different difficulty levels.
> 
>	But why would you want to? What is the point of calling Dance 
>'Easy' and Physics 'Hard'? Would the system operate any differently if 
>you called both of them 'Average' instead? 
> 
>	Unless you have to directly compare different skills, it will not. 
> 

The point is that by doing so, it is possible to use the same method of
determining difficulty for both.  I prefer to do free-form GM'ing.  When I
determine a difficulty, I ask myself "How hard would it be for a professional
with this skill to do this?"  Depending on the game, I ususally either assign
a difficulty on a 1-10 scale and then multiply appropriately to get a difficulty
or, if it has one of those charts like "Easy = 1, Average = 2, Hard = 4" I look
at the chart and use it.
	In this way, the game system adjusts things so that I don't have to
think about whether or not skill X is an easy skill to use when I determine
difficulty.  The ease of learning has already been factored into the skill
level.

>>>	Combat skills are also compared directly fairly often - although this 
>>>is not neccessary. For example, rifles are easier to use than self-bows. But 
>>>you don't need to give the Rifle skill a different cost than the Bow skill 
>>>to represent this. Just give rifles a higher to hit modifier than bows - 
>>>to represent that with the same amount of training, a rifleman is more 
>>>accurate than a bowman. 
>....
>>	Thus, if an untrained bowman has X accuracy, an untrained rifleman 
>>should have X + Y accuracy, where Y is determined by how much more innate
>>accuracy a rifle has than a bow does.  On the other hand, since it is easier
>>to learn to use a rifle properly than it is to learn to use a bow properly,
>>a bowman with Z hours of training should have an accuracy of, say, X + Z, 
>>while the rifleman with the same amount of training should have X + Y + A*Z 
>>accuracy, where A is some factor higher than one.  The system you suggest 
>>does not do this.
> 
>	Well, you are correct that my suggestion does not do this (it is 
>far from a coherent system). However, I am not convinced that this is a 
>better modeling of reality. To whit:
> 
>	I am not sure what you mean by 'inherent accuracy' here. I would 
>define the 'inherent accuracy' of the weapon to be defined by the maximum 
>accuracy which one can get, regardless of how skilled you are. I would 
>define 'ease of use' to be defined by how well people with no or very 
>little training can use the weapon. 

That is what I mean by inherent accuracy.  By ease of use, I mean ease of
learning (sorry).

>	Obviously, a rifle is alot more 'accurate' than a bow is - so let 
>us take the case of an early musket, whose 'accuracy' is no greater than 
>that of a bow, as I have defined it. (Two masters will have about the 
>same scattering at any given range). 
> 
>	Now untrained people will still do alot better with the musket 
>than the bow (leaving aside issues of loading each), because it is much 
>easier to use and aim (just point it in the right direction). As people 
>increase in skill, however, there will come a point where the bowman is 
>just as accurate as the musketeer. 
> 
>	In this case, I think the hit chance is best represented as 
>a base chance, X for the bow, X + Y for the musket, added to a fixed 
>amount, Z for skill, with both of them stopping upon reaching a maximum 
>(defined by the weapon).

This could work all right, but it still ignores the fact that a small
amount of training with a musket will yield a greater increase in accuracy
with a musket than the small amount of training will yield with a bow.
	The idea of both of them stopping upon reaching a maximum defined
by the weapon is VERY good, and I can't think of any games that have done 
this... someone probably ought to, though.

>	How to factor in range is a different problem which I don't want 
>to deal with right now (although I will say that it is different for a 
>bow and a rifle). 
> 

I don't want to deal with it either.  :^)   I've considered several possible
systems for my homebrew rules, and I've got one that works reasonably well,
but it could be a lot better.

Travis
picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design