Re: parrying or Multi Skills

[Andrew Luers <orc_food@yahoo.com>]

--- "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com> wrote:
> >   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.
> 

   That is the way I like it. To many GM keep uping
the die because the players made the last check. There
is a point that you should make most of your checks. A
master should almost never fail. I been in to many
games that the find traps skill goes up as a night
goes on.

  And to head you off, yes that is the bad GM's. Only
that if you go every week, you have to play under bad
GM's.

  Again, yes, this would make a limit on some skills. 
I am not talking about 2D6 checks on everything. A few
skill, like fast draw, would get limited. Other would
have a dice base base on what is happening (like
amount of light and sound for shadows and hiding). 

  I wish that you have played Rolemaster and other
game that have listed examples on that effects a
skill. please see my statements below on collade age
games.

  On this one, I do not see us seeing eye to eye.

> 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. 

  L agree. The base cast math is a little hard.
The combat rules on the other hand are every simple,
and fast to play. Hell,other than the base cost, ok
the whole soul thing is a mess, the whole game is
simple. At on time the game start out simple, I am
sure before us collage power gamers got a hold of it.
That is the way I like it (simple). When I feel like a
collae game I play Rolemaster. Maybe AQ needs a
collage age set of rules. Spilt die (in my view point)
is at that level. 

   

  
 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. 
 

  Realy, What if one round you less init. and the next
made it. Does the +4 go to the next defensive round or
does it go away unless you make the die roll again? 
Please elaborate:)

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.

  It best for me. I do not have to remanber if the
player added to his CDV or by much. The new player
have less to learn. To many of the new players under
me, were never told the you can use combat skill far
anything other then mult. attack. Gear-ted 99.9% of
the time mult is the "BEST" way to use the skill.   



 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.

    Not everyone is as start as you (and that means me
by the way :) ). Many players set for four to five
min. thinking about what to do. More rules mean more
time out. Again I have to go to Rolemaster. Under
those rules, some time I set for 6 to 10 min thinking
how the spilt up my skill.
   
> 
> 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?
> 
    When I say all night, I mean we stop the game the
week before becuase combat is going to happen. The
next night we play, we start at 7:00 and end at 11:00.


> >  :) 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.

  Well you are one of the lucky ones that can get into
a cont. game or is already in it. Me and other players
must set under the only other game. The reason I like
to go to AQ is that I can go under who I like. Cont.
games lock me out of the fun. 

    yes it is all one long continuing story and thatn
is one of the reason I like it to. BUT...  The club
works with a open door(game) way to do things. 

> 
> >   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

  Well I treid my best. Would do better face to face I
fear. You will not see anything more for me on this. 
Come to the game. plea.s.e...  It has been to long. We
need some of the better GM's to show up and game.
  Andrew L.
  
>