From: fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche)
Subject: Re: SOND, was RE: a New line
Reply-To: fks1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:03:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.162400.29978@unislc.uucp> stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer) writes:
>
>Okay, folks, here we go, starting the ball rolling. I am beginning a new
>line of discussion here, entitled SOND (Start Of a New Discussion).
>It is based on the idea of players starting out as children, with 

>
>	ABILITY SCORES:
>This is what I propose, but it is totally open to discussion, or change.
>The characters have four basic ability scores, each with two sub scores.
>I posted an idea similar to this on the net weeks ago, but here it is
>again:

I really like the passive/active idea.  I have only a few nitpicks...

>	Each ability has a passive, and an active subscore. They are as
>follows:
>	STRENGTH: Passive: Endurance
>		  Active: Brute force
>	INTELLIGENCE: Passive: Magic resistence/wisdom
>		  Active: Ability to work magic/psionics

Do you want magic to be inherent in the system? I mean, do you want
everyone to use magic?  I think Intelligence might better be defined
as Passive: Intuition
   Active: Reasoning
      or
    Passive:  Memory, Knowledge
    Active:  Logic
Magic might be another ability...

>	PERSONALITY: Passive: Looks/likeableness
>		  Active: Haggling/swindling/fasttalking

would active correspond also to charismatic ability? understanding people?

>	AGILITY: Passive: General coordination/AC/Falling w/o getting hurt
>		  Active: Dodging
>
>	Now at this point I have a question, what do you think would be
>used to determine a character's ability to aim? Maybe a combination of
>passive intelligence, and active/or passive agility? I'm not sure at 
>this point.
>	I'm also open to ideas on how to use the abilities. Do we make them
>a percentage number? A 3-18 number (probably not, becauyse since these 
>characters all start out as kids, that'd put them all in the 3-4 category)?
>Any suggestions?
>	

i just had a strange idea (i think..) for handling range of abilities...
how about a "reverse logarithmic" scale.  That is, there is a big difference
between the lower numbers which then lessens at the higher ones... this
would give the children a good range (on a 1 to 20 scale we'd work avg to 
be a 9-11 or something)  and would simulate a childs view that all
adults are the same. : >. heh.  i don't know.. it just occurred to me..

>	Next is To-hit/Where hit:
>Here is an idea I have been working on, but once again, everything is
>open to discussion. 
[deleted, read the original post!]
i like the mechanic of this, however i have one problem.  it seems that
this would allow for two types of skill levels.  Average and Accurate.
  This would require that combat skills be handled differently than 
other skills (something that IMO is a Badness).  And also wouldn't make
for much variety in level of combat competence.  Can this be reworked
to allow for wider range of skill? (i can't think.. i'm still reeling
from just getting my ass well and fully whupped by my Civ. final..)

>
>	SKILLS:
>	The way I think we should treat skills is fairly simple. I think
>that the player thinks of 3 skills that they are paying close attention to.
>For instance, the character might decide that each time the have a sword 
>fight, they are paying VERY close attention to exactly what is being done,
>and how to improve. At the end of each day (game time, not realtime) the
>GM rates the character's performance in those three areas, from 0 to 3.
>0 would be if the character did not use the skill at all that day, and
>1-3 would be how much/how well they used it if they did. These points are
>added to the character's total, and after a set amount of points has
>been reached (value depends on the skill), the character gains a level
>in that skill.
>
this sounds good.. but still kind of hard to tell.. what kind of skill
system do you propose? 
>
>
>Well, that's all I have right now. Any comments?
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>| It's the sputter of a raindrop. It's the sunlight on my face |
>| My mind's eye into other realms. It's my paradise escape.    |
>| Steve Spencer	SLC, Utah 	stv@unislc.slc.unisys.com      |
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i just thought of another thing.. depending on what age you are going
to, on the average, be playing.. it might be necessary to take into
account the difference in the physical maturing process between 
boys and girls (that is girls mature physically before boys..)

as for genetics, why not have the player choose it himself.  then
as he gets experience points (or whatever) and wants to apply them
to his attributes there are some restrictions based on his chosen
genetic path.  maybe its just more 'expensive' to raise something
that is would not otherwise 'normally' occur.  that is, someone who
would naturally be thin, could work out and gain great strength, but
it would be harder than for someone who would naturally be more fit.

just my thoughts.

Scaramouche
-- 
>>>----------------fks1@midway.uchicago.edu-------------------------<<<
"Reality is the only word...that should always be in quotes." -MLW/TTKC
"I am afraid , monsieur, you will have to kill me first and i have a
   prejudice against being killed before nine o'clock."    -Scaramouche
Newsgroups: rec.games.design