Re: Skill Costs.

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

Various bit of spew deleted for brevity. "> >" = Me  ">" = Wright

> From: Wright Frazier <khelek>
> Subject: Re: Skill Costs.
>
> > 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 didn't say that the downtime we have is always totally unused time. I
said that it could be a retroactive learning time of what skills we honed.
Mind you if you look at it that way it seems we are getting the product
and paying the time later sortof like a credit card lets you buy without
the paying on the spot. You pay the time to learn later.

> > 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
[eeps and money spew about unilateral consistency ]
> > 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
> > 
>
> 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.

Didn't pay attention did you. Dan several times over the years has tried
to lower the amount of silver being handed out. The last time was after all
the money went bye-bye.

> 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.

So now you are complaining about not seeing high rating characters? yeesh I
thought people really hate playing with the big boys. Make up your minds.
Less eeps per adventure means you have to be more carefull with where you
put your eeps. You still can get a high rate person though it just takes
longer. People do far less with skills and things can become a challenge
again. How many people do you know who after a few weeks are the immobilize
god?

You talk how it is unfair that the newbie coming in would have all these high
raters all around. I say it is no different than you starting a new adventurer
after one of yours dies. You are low and there are always those above you. And
while it takes longer to get to were they are they are not going up ANY faster
than you. And if they play more than 1 adventurer you can catch up and pass them
with skill and time. I have 2 characters I have played for 6 years that have
been passed by someone that has been played every week in 3 years. You want to
get high fast you play 1 person. Me I play 3 and it takes me longer to get
higher. ( especially since the lowest one gets the most play and I keep getting
hit with a death that either was beyond my control or just poor call ). I have
no problem with dying if I chose to be where I was and take the consequences
hell if I had died this weekend it was my fault but I had bought 2 more DP just
in time.

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

No drastic reworking actually. Technically no reworking at all to AQ. To the
Fantasy Club campaign though all it means is that 1 adventure does not equal
one rate. You still balance things based on rating as you always have.

							Spew done,
							Greg