Re: Drowning

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

> Question:  Why in the Hell does the swimming thing need to be so 
> complicated?  And to think that I was getting on Wright's case for 
> wanting to add a chart or two for weapons.

The reason for all the complexity is to make people less pissed I guess.
The way some people rule drowning is WAY to quick. I've seen " you fell
in the water? make a swimming check. Missed it? Roll DI." That type
of GMing sucks ( this is an actual style I've seen a long time ago with
a GM who does not run/play anymore ). The rules are all about ok we shouldn't 
be killed due to missing a check to swim how long should it take. Your ruling is on the
short end of the stick I prefer a longer stick myself but will concede
some of my stick since while one may be able to hold there breath for
a while this time is much shorter with frantic activity to try and keep
yourself from drowning. ( what a run on sentence ). So how long should
it take?

						Greg

> They way that I've always determined it is:
>
> Your in the water.
> Make a 1d6 swimming check.  No?  Default.
> Swimming yet?  That's too bad.
> Give me a 1d6 HEA check.  Still with us?
> Good.  Wanna try another swimming check?  Fail; default.
> Still sinking like stock prices? 2d6 vs. HEA.
> Didn't make it, huh?  
> Now I need you to roll three dice and call the name of your favorite 
> god.  Oh, well.  Thanks for playing.
>
> But, John, I do like the additions of the swimming skill based on armor 
> and such.
>
> See ya Saturday,
> Beej