Re: parrying or Multi Skills

["Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

>   If it was up to me more checks would have "set"
> numbers of die. It would bring about less defvisens of
> rules from GM to GM. As to the last part it only makes
> a simple game for 11 year olds more hard to learn.

Set # of dice also means a limit on how high you need to buy certain
skills. Plus setting that to higher than one (1d6) means you have to buy
it to at least 7 to get 50/50. Not much randomness or room for mastering
a skill.

As for the 11 year olds... AQ has never been a game for eleven year
olds. Just calculating how to buy skills (n*(n+1)/2 * base cost) is
pretty much beyond 11 year olds. The chart helps with most skills (as it
goes to 18) but for DP? Nope. If you buy them one at a time the math is
easier but can you do 25*38 in your head? Neither can most 11 year olds.
So.. a clever 11 year old with a calculator can certainly play AQ.

> > I don't like players rolling anything except
> > resistance checks on their
> > defensive round (including the pesky tor'ites).
>
>   Maybe because it makes life harder for the GM? :)
> I agree to that, but it is the best way for the
> players. Also makes combat more simple ...

??? I don't understand these statements. Can you provide examples of why
it is the best way (best meaning simplest? please define best also) and
also why it makes combat more simple.

My counter arguments so you can address these in your elaboration:

If I roll on the offensive round and determine that I'm just adding +4
to my CDV on my defensive round I just tell the GM my CDV is 4 higher
than normal. Pretty simple. If on the other hand I have to roll dice
then I slow the game down and I have to consult my card for my skill
level. That's my argument against more simple (i.e. simpler). As for
best... until "best" is defined I won't even tread on that territory.
"best" is too subjective for me.

> the reason for the package combat skills in the first
> place. I never like them that way (fighters start
> buying spells way to early now). It is also not every
> real. If I had may way a max # of die would be be put
> on to milt attack.

Blah. And if I had my way.... :)

>     This is the only time I like the idea of "split
> dice". This would add a lot of realness to the game.
> It would also make it less playable.

Again. Elaboration and example would help me understand your statement.

> In Rolemaster,
> they do this ... also combats sometimes that all night
> long! I do not know if one game for one night setup at
> the club could stand up to it. Cont. adv. after cont.
> adv. and a lot of people lock out.

"They do this" and "combats sometimes that all night long" are not
necissarily linked staments and certainly doesn't demonstrate causality.
I also don't understand the causal link to continuing adventures?

>  :) though some persons would like that :)

Put me on that list. I like to think of the Lafayette campaign as one
long continuing adventure anyway... even if we swap out GMs.

>   It would be better to keep parrying a set skill used
> at the defense round. It would be easer on the players
> and the club setup.

As always... can you explain why you believe the above statement?

-Steve