Re: Skill Costs.

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> 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 see the huge holes in time as times when people train, makes it more
believeable to me, instead of people just having this vast magical
knowledge or overnight going from having trouble writing a shortstory
to being Earnest Hemmingway.  Downtime is good in my opinion.

> 
> 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 ).
> 

Re: 500sp/head+hazard.  Where did this come from?  I know we are suppose
	to give lesser amounts of silver now, but I've never heard this
	500sp/head ruling.

As far as less xp per head, that will take a pretty serious fundamental
shift in the campaign.  It'll also make it grossly unfair to newer people
who have not had their characters for 6 years.  A newbie escapes into
the main campaign in the fall, he is rate 4-5 if we reduce the xp, and
is suddenly in a world where people are playing rate 70+ people and has
no hope of catching up with that in his short 4 years at purdue.  Right
now it isn't that bad, you can with the 1 rate xp/adventure get up
in rates at a fair rate, but if you knock that back to 1K/adv or so,
people will never see high rates.  Also by doing this, you'd have to
change the way skills are done.  People get less xp, they don't get
their skills up as much, so they can do far less with a skill.  So
you have to lower checks or noone succeeds at dick.  You have to
depower magic items, no more mass damage items because people have
less DP.  You have to eliminate magical items all together practically
because of the far fewer xp given means noone has the xp to blow on
a major(effect) or even really a minor item.

What you propose means a very very very drastic reworking of AQ, and not
one that I think will work for the better.

Wright
 
> > 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
>