From: bshsiung@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Bernard Hsiung)
Subject: net.rpg.slug
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:42:04 GMT

>sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>>bshsiung@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Bernard Hsiung) writes:

>BTW, this is very much how Lost Souls (and its sister game, Legendary Lives)
>handles all results.

Really?  I hadn't known that.  Avoiding tables is a goal that I agree with.
SLUG, as it stands, will hopefully only require the memorization of the names
of the levels.

>>Maybe you can buy other "special effects", such as reduced damage from your
>>opponent or disarming, with your Result Points.  This is clearly generalizable
>>to other skills.  Negative Result Points can be used by the GM to purchase
>>undesirable effects, such as critical fumbles.  (Or give your opponent extra
>>Result Points to apply to *you*.)

>Hmmm - maybe.  Seems like you'd have to get to Excellent or Terrible level,
>though.

Well, it's just an idea.  Maybe we'll just say that Negative Result Points
don't exist--when you fail, you fail and that's all.

>>     Unfortunately, implementing this would mean that we'd have to rescale the
>>Terrible, Inferior, Poor, Average, Good, Superior, and Excellent ratings for
>>skill resolution.  

>You lost me here.  Why would we have to rescale?

Well, the names and arrangement are the same, but we're thinking about the
ratings in a slightly different way.  If we want to implement "purchasing" a
better result, you have to keep in mind that, in addition to being strictly
ranked "levels" (Terrible = 1, Inferior = 2, and so on), you can increase the
"ranking" of a Result for 2 Result Points, which doesn't really have anything
to do with the numbered levels...  It's just a pet peeve of mine about the
slight ambiguity; nothing important, I guess, since the intent is clear.  (You
can imagine I was quite traumatized when I was very young by the confusion
caused by the multiple meanings of the word "level" in D&D, not to mention the
small but significant difference between hit points and hit dice.  *grin*)

>>Also, the variation in success levels is too great (the chance for getting any
>>result that your skill level allows your character to achieve is the same)

>Lost me here, too.  If we go with either a bell curve or a modal curve, either
>way, by definition, some results will be more common than others, yes?

Oops.  You are absolutely right and I'm wrong--the curve you implemented by
the selection of the cards in the deck takes care of that.  Sorry.

>While this is certainly freeform, and I admit a GM isn't going to use freeform
>unless she's skilled at improvising, it will at least require some good
>guidelines to be written - GM hints.

Yes, that's true.  My gut feeling is that Hurt is badly injured enough that the
character would have difficulty doing things--hence, worth a -1 modifier.  Very
Hurt is essentially out of the action (-2 modifier is fairly hefty in this
system).  By the time you deserve three face-down cards, you had better be
running away, have friends coming to get you, or be playing dead, since the
character is not likely to be able to do much of anything...  Basically, I'm
trying to match the real-life situations to the game mechanics.

>Care to try writing it up so that any experienced GM could feel
>comfortable with it?  (I don't think SLUG will be for novice GMs!)

Sure.  I'll give it a try if I can find the time to get it done.
But don't hold your breath.  *smile*

Bernie Hsiung (bshsiung@eecs.umich.edu)
"This universe sold by weight not volume.
 Expansion may have occurred during shipping and handling."

Newsgroups: rec.games.design