Scott
DORA
(Scott)
*Sigh*
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by Scott on Feb 5, 2017 19:51:08 GMT
Perhaps a different way to look at it - 5 SAN = about 1 HP? Debatable? Which would you rather have? Cool. How many skill points vs 1 HP? Or 5 san? Which is close to the 'gosh - I'm not sure' line? 50? 100? More? Less? Getting back to what Travis said on page 2, he was talking about 25 or 50 skill points per point of Learning. 1 HP = 5 SAN = 25 skill points? I wouldn't want to try to equalize value here. That would have to be predicated on the idea that there is either only one "correct" build or that there are no "incorrect" build (and therefore stats don't matter.) If you want meaningful diversity in stat allocation, you need to associate each stat with at least one archetype and make that stat super important for anyone who wants to play that way. For instance, Essence is supposed to be the magic stat, so if someone wants to play a magician, they should want to put most of their points into essence. If someone wants to play a combat brute archetype, then they should want to invest heavily in HP. Etc. The problem is, your system is predestined for "one correct build" mode because the way it is set up thwarts stats being meaningful to archetypal builds. How does it thwart? By HP not mattering to "brutes" (poz dwarfs HP in importance). By magicians not being allowed to start with magic (because why take essence it if you can't use it?) But most importantly, by having some stats be super important at creation and then not important later (or literally useless) combined with stats being quite mutable. None of this matters if some stats remain more important at creation than later and also changeable. The correct build will always be investing in what matters at creation (and then attempting to gradually morph your character into what you actually wanted to play.)
|
|
|
Post by Fantômas on Feb 6, 2017 2:14:20 GMT
To make learning more meaningful, that may alleviate some of Travis's concerns - when raising skills, instead of it being a completely random roll as to how much gained, have learning factor into it. eg learning/2 +d6 is the increase you get (modify the die depending on how easy it is to learn due to location or nature of the worlds or teacher. For an exceptional training aide/teacher it could be learning + d6)
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 6, 2017 17:51:35 GMT
I think the ideas of making all starting skill points tethered to Learning takes it from being worthless to golden. (And Richard, the reason I suggested giving some kind of bonus for high Learning at character creation is because as written, there is NO REASON for a starting character to take it - all of it's benefits are for experienced characters). Personally, I think 10-25 skill points would make it worth taking at creation. We're not trying to make it better than WP, ESS, or SAN; we want them all to be roughly equivalent in value.
I'd say 2000 + (Learning x 10) skill points? That means if you dumped every point into it, you'd have 5% more skill points, but you'd be almost crazy, be squishy, and have no magic resistance. For me, that'd be tempting. It would probably entice me to put some in Learning without dumping all the points into Learning. I could be convinced that number should be higher, however. "Value" is going to be different from person to person.
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 6, 2017 17:56:42 GMT
1 HP = 5 SAN = 25 skill points? I wouldn't want to try to equalize value here. That would have to be predicated on the idea that there is either only one "correct" build or that there are no "incorrect" build (and therefore stats don't matter.) I disagree. Each stat should have a roughly equivalent benefit/draw - otherwise, players will not select it. Making attributes equivalent doesn't make one "correct" build - just the opposite. It means that you can choose to put points in different allocations and still be roughly equivalent as a characters. Furthermore, just because there isn't an "incorrect" build do not mean the stats don't matter. It means that every build will have it's own strengths and weaknesses, but still be roughly equivalent. Agreed. Ideally I'd like to get away from that, but how else do you propose we make Learning attractive?
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 6, 2017 17:57:50 GMT
To make learning more meaningful, that may alleviate some of Travis's concerns - when raising skills, instead of it being a completely random roll as to how much gained, have learning factor into it. eg learning/2 +d6 is the increase you get (modify the die depending on how easy it is to learn due to location or nature of the worlds or teacher. For an exceptional training aide/teacher it could be learning + d6) I like the idea of making Learning effect, well...learning. Pete, I don't understand the math in your example.
|
|
|
Post by Fantômas on Feb 6, 2017 22:39:43 GMT
<snip>Pete, I don't understand the math in your example. In the stat of Learning, Jimmy has a score of 14. He has a tick in Pistols and succeeds in getting a skill increase. So Jimmy can increase his pistol by 7 + 1d6. (learning divided by 2 plus 1d6) Jimmy is in a world where training/skill increases are a bit easier, so instead of a d6, he gets a d8. So he would could increase a skill by 7 + 1d8. (learning divided by 2 plus 1d8) Jimmy is in a matrix like world and trains by jacking in. Due to the nature of training in this world, he gets his full learning stat as part of the skill increase. In this case Jimmy gets 14 +1d6 (learning plus 1d6) Hopefully this makes a bit more sense
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 13:21:44 GMT
Thinking people would get really high skills really fast with that method Pete.
Another way around it might be learning divided by two equals die to use for skill ups.
Learning Die up to 12 d6 up to 16 d8 up to 20 d10
?
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 14:24:39 GMT
I agree that half stat + die is too fast, but I like the idea that Learning actually helps you learn. It could do so in a number of ways: 1. Increasing the step as Pete and Logan have mentioned. 2. Increasing the breadth of skills learned over time. Free tick in a skill each game for each point of Learning above 10? I'm not sure I like it, but it's an idea. 3. Making it easier to learn. High Learning somehow makes it easier to confirm skill ups (easier to fail the "did I learn something" roll).
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 18:00:49 GMT
Well (and possibly instead of even having the die, etc) what my plan has been is the following:
Travis walks up to a helicopter. Huh. I've never been in one before.
Travis gets into the pilot seat. Stuff happens.
Travis now has 'learning x1' pilot: helicopter (rotary wing).
For pretty much everything.
Travis picks up a fly fishing rod. Huh. Says Travis.
Etc.
So I'm thinking that having a one in five chance of pulling something off (Hey look says Travis - a nuke power plant! Let's go in!) for those that have a 20 learning (unless it's complicated) is a pretty good deal.
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 19:00:53 GMT
The usefulness of using Learning as a base for write in skills has been discussed earlier in the thread. You think that is enough? Are write in skills going to be more useful in this campaign?
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 20:32:24 GMT
My thought is that if pretty much anything the PC tried ended up at Learnx1, that would be pretty useful.
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 20:37:26 GMT
I'm going to wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in.
|
|
Scott
DORA
(Scott)
*Sigh*
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by Scott on Feb 9, 2017 19:41:27 GMT
1. Increasing the step as Pete and Logan have mentioned. I like this idea. Since the game is going to use virtual dice, I would also include d5/d7/d9 2. Increasing the breadth of skills learned over time. Free tick in a skill each game for each point of Learning above 10? I'm not sure I like it, but it's an idea. Interesting. This would make it easier to improve the skills that are important to your character but don't get rolled often. 3. Making it easier to learn. High Learning somehow makes it easier to confirm skill ups (easier to fail the "did I learn something" roll). I like this one too. I would have the confirm rolls be current skill minus learningx1. I know Logan thinks basic math makes players heads explode, but skill ups aren't in combat, so no big deal. We should probably do some form of all three of these if Learning isn't going to affect starting skill points. We'd still have the starting sanity problem though. Maybe just get rid of that as a stat and have everyone start at the same sanity?
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Feb 10, 2017 1:06:19 GMT
Thinking I'd rather limit the learning stat by just having it useful at the beginning (learning x X = extra stat points) and having it determine new stats (learning x1 = what you get in a new skill).
|
|
|
Post by Fantômas on Feb 13, 2017 2:45:10 GMT
Thinking I'd rather limit the learning stat by just having it useful at the beginning (learning x X = extra stat points) and having it determine new stats (learning x1 = what you get in a new skill). where you say - "learning x X = extra stat points" do you mean skill points or stat points?
|
|