From: mav@cs.uq.oz.au (Simon Dennis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:24:01 GMT
Reply-To: mav@cs.uq.oz.au

Repl to  magnus@ii.uib.no

As the suggester of the d20-d20 system with a table for each skill I would
like to make a couple of points in defence.

When I was deciding on dice I did think about using larger dice. The problem is
availability. At least in Brisbane d100 are pretty rare. D20's were the 
largest which were likely to be available generally. The rolls in Lore (the
system my group are developing) are open ended though with 20's being rerolls
on either the positive or negative dice.

In the FAQ there were two possiblities for combat resolution suggested. The
first is to have a skill table for each skill, which is the method we use.
Certainly, this makes for a large number of tables, but then as with Rolemaster
the players only need to have those which they use regularly and for the GM
we have all table lookups computerised anyway.

The great advantages in this system are its simplicity and generality. We
use the same mechanic for skills, for determining the weather, for
determining the number of life points a character has in character
generation etc. It also allows a great deal of detail without extra
cost in terms of play. For example, in unarmed combat the three
original skills were punch, kick, and throw.  Each has a different
profile and are best used in different situations. The punch is the easiest 
hit but does little damage. The throw is difficult to make but does
more damage. In addition by careful construction of the tables, skill
development is made very easy.  Players simply allocate points to
skills. Skills need not cost different amounts since the tables can be
constructed to make each development point of roughly equal value. Also
as the results get larger the rolls needed grow exponentially so there
is no need to worry about making it more difficult for higher level
characters to progress.  This detail is not only removed from play but
is removed out of the process altogether. It isn't necessary to think 
about it even in character generation. It is hidden in the tables.

The second proposal, (i.e., having a generic skill table which is then
cross-referenced to determine the result), I think is really little
different. You still need to have a table of some description which
decodes "success" for a particular skill, and hence you don't really
decrease the number of tables, you simply add another step to the skill
determination process. Certainly the tables you have would be less
complicated, but then you have less detail and can't deal transparently
with skill costs and the logarithmic improvement curve. We actually do
have a generic table of this kind which is used when someone wants to
do something for which there is no skill - but you simply can't get the
fine grained resolution which you want for varying things such as life
point determination, and weather generation with such a system.

For those interested we are planning to release Lore as a shareware
hypertext, complete with a world called Imoso, the skill determination
software etc in Feburary 1993. If you would like to be notified at the
time of the release please send me your name and email address.

Simon Dennis

mav@cs.uq.oz.au

--
Simon Dennis                  Address: Department of Computer Science
Email: mav@cs.uq.oz.au                 University of Queensland
                                       QLD 4072
                                       Australia
Newsgroups: rec.games.design