From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<1992Aug27.115554.701@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
	<warren-270892132327@minerva.taligent.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:28:16 GMT

In article <warren-270892132327@minerva.taligent.com> warren@apple.com (Chris Warren) writes:

   In article <1992Aug27.115554.701@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
   z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:
   > 
   > In article <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
   > 
   > [many examples of the silliness of AD&D classes]
   > 
   > > Notice that all my examples are class-based instead of race-based.  That's
   > > because the class restrictions (IMHO) are the most ridiculous of all.
   > > But hey, we live with them, in the name of game balance....
   > > 
   > > 
   > 
   > 	That might be why I play mainly GURPS now :-)

   I was wondering how long it would be until the question of point
   based systems vs class based systems would come up.

   The main purpose of classes, IMHO, is to foster interdependance of
   the memembers of the party and to force players to take on different
   roles in the party. 

[rest deleted]


OK, a GOOD point based system should take into account these things:

1) the profession of a character, and thus his preferences and such and such,
should greatly influence the points he pay for things.

2) Correlated skills should improve each other out in a calculated fashion.
Example: if you spend X points in dagger, it will help you X points with
dagger, X/3 points with knife, X/10 points with short short sword, and X/25
points for all swords (if it's a computer game, then it could even go up to
improving X/100 points for all fighting...).

2b) Specialisation affects itself. I.E. A physicist is morel likely to
   have an easier time getting bits of data (or trying to learn from) 
   a skill that is realted to physics, instead of one completely unrelated.
   Correlation of skills should help both in determining the price for
   a skil level and for which skills gets improved "virtually" by real
   points spent in other skills. Virtuallyt means that the virtual points
   gained aren't really gained: they show up at action time, never when
   you increase skills (well, by showing up I mean: have an effect on the
   costs of increasing another skill). A skill level of zero still receives
   "virtual" skill points, as sometimes learning physics will always make
   you learn something about computer programming, even if it's not much...
   part addition, part multiplier modifiers. If it was all addition, then
   a high skill would give you real stupendous knowsledge in other domains
   which are skill evel zero or very low. If it was all multiplication
   modifier, then having a high skill would mean that a skill level of zero
   never ever gets to receive a little something out of another skill.
   The actual way to implement this is left to the care of  a computer
   programmer masochist enough to try.

4) Specialisation affects itself: the more you know one skill A physicist
   is more likely to have an easier time learning MORE physics than say
   playing guitar. This means that we could think of all the skills someone
   has as an ordered list of skills, from the highest one to the lowest
   one. Remember that ifd the game is balanced, then two skills of hte same
   level should be just as powerful/useful. AThat's why each skill then
gets a nominal value, a base "mean" price, according to it's
powerfulness/usefulness, which is determined by the current campaign
setting. Then the class/character concept/player preferences modify this
value, then the actual position of the skill in the skill still modify the
price. A skill would thus cost less, proportionnately, if it was in the
first position than if it was in another position.

OK, that's a LOT of calculations, but remember that:
1) these calculations are done OUT of the game.
2) I conceived this system for a computer game anyway.
  When you've got a few Megaflops, adding a few divisions and
multiplications isn;t a problem.

5) Skills start getting increasingly costier when they approach a limit
where the skill nears the actual stat of the character related to the skill
(or whatever other appropriate calculation), which we name the "roof".
RThus, a character low on the muscle department, and having big brains,
will tend to not push too far his physical skills. Thus, the rule
(only highly TALENTED individuals attain high positions in a given skill.
By talented, we do not mean simply take a straigth stat. A talent is like
something you're born with, so it is possible to add a list of "talent
values" to the list of "preferences". The preferecne value has a linear
effect, while the talent value will make the character save some effort to
learn the skill at the easyly attainable skill levels, but it will make him
save a LOT of effort at the highest skill levels)

So, in short, that means that a character who specialize in what he's
talented with and aspecialize in correlated skills  will find it easier to
get better at what he does on all fronts. Thus, the "jack of all trades"
syndrome plaguing the currents skill poin based systems would naturally
extinguish itself out.

The problem with current skill points system is that when it costs you say
100 points to get from skill level 15 to skill level 16, and it costs only
*1* point to get from skill level zero to skill level 1 in unknown skills,
well what do you think the player will do: spend all his points on a single
skill, or spent them on aproximaltely 10 other skills he doesn't know
anything about and make them go up to say level 3 or 4 each (1+2+4[+7])?

Heh. So with my set of rules (still owrking on it, tough), when you're
trying to spent your points in something really far down the list 9i.e.
something you don't know anything about), well it may cost you say 10 times
more than normal... something to think about twice. Of course, the simle
fact of buying a level in that skill moves it up a notch (or many, if it
was colocated with skills  of the same level), thus making it relatively
less harder to buy. But the "cheapest" skill will always remain (fir a
given fixed skill level and same base skill cost) the skill you're already
the best at.

Heck, my idea is SOOOO good, I'll

(C) Copyright 1992, Patrick Rannou.

it!  ;-)
Really, someday we'll see:

"AD&D2 is dead! Long Live AD&D3!"

But i'm sure it will be for all the wrong reasons (like T$R wanting to make
some new cash).



This forced differentiation has the drawbacks
   described earlier in this thread.  But it can also make it easier
   to define the different roles in the party.  In a point based
   system such as the Hero system, it is easier to wind up
   with a party of characters that are basically similar to one,
   two, or if you are lucky, three different basic types.  On the
   other hand with a good GM and experienced players, this is
   less of a problem.

And with a good designed game it is also less of a problem. i'm sure that
if the game is made correlt, then you will get characters who "naturally",
even in a skill based game, seem to follow classes all of their own, even
if the game doesn;t have any classes in it.


   On the other hand.  Some of TSRs justifications for their class
   restrictions and racial restrictions are somewhat contrived. 
   IMHO, this probably has more to do with the age and history of the
   system than anything else.

Yup. It's an old Gigaxian ink blotch still in the rules everywhere.

   As people have mentioned before, there are a number of ways of 
   eliminating the racial restrictions.  If someone wanted to
   be real clever they could in a point based system such as
   champions, build the equivalent packages to the demihumans,
   and give them disadvantages such that the cost of the package
   is brougt down to zero.  Maybe I'll go off and try this exercise.

Look the "alternate class design" system presented in the DMG2. It really
SUCKS. It's point basd, yes, but anybody could do FAR better than what they
did. The excsue they give for having "classes" which cost far more using
that method than the standard one is that "standard classes are package
deals". Yeah, at half the price it's given! And Min/Maxing/using loopholes
can be pushed to the max in that section to the point where it's ugly. I
managed to create a super-class which cost only 3000 XP, still more than a
mage, but which had the best quality/cost ratio of all possible "design
classes". It had magic user spells, cleric spells, good hit dice, good
attack/saves, armor allowed, and some thievery skills (but not all).
Really munchkin class. I called it the Munchkin class, by the way.

Followup to rec.games.advocacy if you wish to comment on things not
directly related to AD&D, like my skill points suggestion.

--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd