From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Y/TCT Response
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:37:59 GMT

picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes...
>>	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.

	My point is that I think you already consider the 'ease' of the skill 
when you set the difficulty. For example, what difficulty (1-10) would you 
set for the following tasks: 

1) Figuring how long it takes for an egg to boil.
2) Convincing a typical security guard to let you into a locked building. 
3) Kicking open a plywood and plaster door. 

	If you have to ask what skill is being used first, then I think that 
you have failed to remove consideration of the skill from the difficulty. 
Think of (1) with Biochemistry as opposed to Cooking; or (2) with Seduction 
as opposed to Fast-Talk; or (3) with Martial Arts as opposed to Athletics. 
	Unless you can set these difficulties without knowing the skill being 
used, then I think you are already considering the 'Facility' of the skill 
when you set the difficulty. 

	I think a 'professional' level in a skill is best defined by how 
many 'points' have gone into that skill - not complicated by some arbitrary 
'difficulty' level. For example, it should take many points in Photography to 
establish a 'professional' level (its hard to make a living as a photographer, 
after all). OTOH, just a few in Computer Programming will qualify you. Does 
this mean that Photography is 'harder' than Programming? 
	I don't think so. 

>
>>	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 problem is - I don't think that is true. Having been in a 
starting archery class, I can say that there is fairly rapid advancement 
from the absolute beginning, when many people were unable to hit the targets 
at all. Heck - some of the time they dropped the arrow as they shot, hitting 
the ground in front of them. 
	OTOH, I suspect that most people start out doing more reasonably 
with a rifle, and then get better more steadily. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You don't need a weatherman to know which way
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | the wind blows."
Columbia University         |                             - Bob Dylan