Re: Skill Costs.

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

> From: "Michael Kilgore" <khaakon@lycosmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Skill Costs.
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:45:16 -0500
>
> I would like to add something in addition to the "spew."  One of the things
> that this game system does not have and I would like to see added and
> *enforced* is the fact that it takes time to learn things.  If this was
> added and and enforced it would help with this problem (note I did not say
> solve).  For instance, at base cost 20 for a marine, a marine can go from
> rank 0 to rank 16 with less than one week's of experience points.  I find
> this rate of learning very impressive.  I acknowledge that this is an
> extreme example but it illustrates my point.
>
> Of course, enforcing a rule like this can become a nightmare (as it would be
> more suitable to a small group).  We would have to take on extra time after
> each adventure to allow adventurers to conduct their studies or allow
> everyone to have up to five different adventurers.  I don't know if either
> of these options are desireable.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

See this is where the simulation fails. We all realize it is quite a farce
that you can have absolutely no skill in pottery one day and the next day
you go and kill a Draco and you are now the Master potter. I definately do
not want to see people with 5 adventurers ( current limit is 3 with 1
allowed to be in study, where the simulation gets better for the learning
time = skill ). I also do not want to see ANY extra time pass between
adventures. A long time ago I would take my warrior on an adventure and
take a lot of damage and not have enough time to heal before going on
another ( this was regular play not a continuation ). Back then there was
a bit more healing around so you could subsidize your healing by bugging
a priest ( any priest at the time ). After healing became even more scarce
I started playing 2 adventurers so while my warrior was at home resting
and nursing wounds my rogue would be out risking her neck.

The big problem I have with the current setup is since we have killed 
anything of import near us GMs have to take us out on 2 month excursions
and the game date flies by. From 1988 to 1994 about 13 years passed ( 9987-
10000) since then twice as much time has gone by. I don't care for this
it leaves huge holes in time where my adventurer must have just stood
around pounding. ( you could say he was retroactively learning all the
skills I learned )

I'm actually in favor of less eeps per adventure. This HAS to be done
unilaterely though. If only one GM does it and another decides not to
one batch of adventurers will become almighty while the others are
left in the dust. Other consequences would be no one would want to go
on the low eep GM's game since they know they will get squat ( people
are greedy and want more for less ). The same has been seen for money.
It was decided that right after the whole money disappearing bit that
a regular adventure should result in no more than 500 silver per head
plus hazard. The last two times I GMed this I was scoffed at by the
party by the piddly amount of pay which should have been the standard
and some of these scoffers where low rates who were jaded by the high
rates ( and previous rates they have gotten as a high rater ).

						Greg
> From: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Skill Costs.

[ Steve spew and others whose names were trimmed before it got here trimmed ]

> >[Being steve spew about the good old days]
> >Anyone remember Jaern before AQ? It took a LONG time to work
> >your way up to a lightning bolt and you were respected when
> >you got one. Now you get one your 2nd adventure. Pure crap.
> >A killer is born by rating 10 (warrior wise) and only hones
> >himself after that. Rate 10 also sees a divine word. *sigh*
> >Too many eeps? Or stuff too cheap?
> >[end spew]
> >
> > -Steve