Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


A crusade against constant stats!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
21 replies to this topic

#21 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 07 July 2000 - 08:48 AM

What I meant by a distinction between Practice and Experience is that generally practice will not teach you everything that real action does. BUT, practice affords other opportunities, like the chance to screw up, and the ability to scrutinize your own technique. I might have more efficiently defined it as First or Second hand learning.

I really like your Attribute/Knowledge/Skill split... but I wonder about a few things. If the skill rating is determined by a combination of the other two, why have a skill rating at all? Why not just have the player raising his Knowledge skill quickly and his attributes slowly by performing the skill?

The main reason would be if your attributes are very broad, like STR, DEX, etc. then your player might get better at unrelated actions simply by practicing one skill. Like if fencing raises your Agility attribute, then you might also get better at other AGI things... but I suppose that makes a little sense.

But if your Knowledges and Attributes are more narrow... (explaination) The D&D att of Dexterity was really an unfair one. It really combined the "real" attributes of Hand-Eye Coordnation, balance, Reaction time, Dexterity, Agility, Flexibility, and others. We don''t need to cut corners with the computer, so you might incorperate all of these "attributes". In which case, raising one (non-abstract) attribute by performing one skill damn well would raise other skills!

So I ask you, Keith, what are the categories you have determined to use? That makes all the difference.

-Hyde

Sponsor:

#22 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 July 2000 - 10:07 PM

Well we were thinking of going with an earlier system for PnP attributes, a set of 12, 4 physical, 4 mental, 4 supernatural. These would be very broad categories, pretty much along the lines of ADnD or Vampire - The Masquerade.
Then we''d have knowledges, broad categories as well, possibly including specialisation knowledges ( though we were not even going to brainstorm on those until everything else worked. ) You''d have things like agriculture, science, ranged weapons, handweapons. This is the part we''re finding hardest to do, because the broadness of those knowledges kindof varies, specially if you throw in people''s interpretation of those knowledges.
Skills would be much more specific, like horseriding, blaster use, swordsmanship...

But I''m sure you could pick the above apart in just a few lines, ''cause I know my team does that every few minutes .
We''re still designing it all in our heads, because we all feel that there''s something better out there, that we''ve missed.

That''s why I''ve been posting about story points somewhere else, which is something going against the grain of stats and skills entirely. Sooner or later we''ll have to decide on something, but we have a lot of free time so it won''t be soon .
The problem remains logical separation. Sometimes, knowledge and skill is hard to think of separately. If you know a lot about chemistry, it''s not that hard to do stuff with it. However, if you know a lot about swords, that doesn''t mean you''ll be a great swordsman....



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS