Reading through, I initially like the grouping of skills - it makes it
appear less of a hodge-podge. The write-up of the subskills looked
reasonably balanced and useful without being out-of-scope or crushing other
skills.

The language skills each seem to add value without devaluing other people's
language skills. The disguise skills (troubadour) look far more useful than
the equivalent troubadour skills for adventuring, which is appropriate. The
information assessment (knowledge) looks similar to the base knowledge you
get for having a skill, and I would usually get the skill rather than just a
speciality, unless I got a lot of specialities, in which case, it becomes
really useful.

However, putting my player hat on, my spy would take the fieldwork (thief)
group on principle, but very few of the subfields, as traps, locks & safes,
sleight of hand, and some of enhanced memory is covered by thief. The people
skills (courtier) group also looked really useful, until I realised this is
almost completely roleplayed. GMs generally won't let you make a roll and
change their NPCs' behaviour, but good roleplaying will generally let you
get all sorts of info.

My thoughts for the fieldwork problem are :
- you can operate at the higher of the two ranks, or
- you get +2%/Rank of spy, or
- the subskills from the two professions overlap without complete
replacement - e.g.
   * thieves pick locks faster, but spies open safes
   * thieves pick pockets, spies swap briefcases
   * thieves spot a wider range of traps, but spies deactivate without
breaking them

There are 22 subskills and 5 groups here. A Rank 10 spy would have 4 groups
almost completely learnt, or the meat of all five groups, at 1 group or 2
subskills / Rank. A rank 5-7 spy would have about half the available skills.
As long as we don't get a "skirmish effect" from one group or sub-skill
better much better for adventuring than the others, two rank 5 spies should
be significantly different while both being skilled in a large area of their
profession.

Other small problems: Manipulation is too broad a skill. Bureaucracy is
useable anywhere with a structured organisation (like a bureaucracy), not
just (or necessarily all) courts. What is seal breaking? How does hiding
integrate with stealth? shouldn't there be a trailing / betrailed subskill?
where is the "jump from helicopter to ski down mountain while using machine
gun to kill the bad guys behind you" subskill?

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: salient@kcbbs.gen.nz [mailto:salient@kcbbs.gen.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 10:23 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Spy - a new angle


After sifting through people's various comments, the structure I proposed
in my version 2.0 (sketch design) [get some stuff at rank 0, and then
abilities with each rank] was beginning to break down.  Too many things
were being shifted to the 'gain at rank 0 and get better at gradually'
category, so that we were back with most spies looking very similiar to
each other.  Also, the abilities or skill-ettes, (sorry Ian, frypans kept
leaping to the mind), were becoming unbalanced - some having more stuff
than others.  

So rather than amalgamating them, I started breaking them down more, and
ended up with these five fields of expertise: Fieldwork, People Skills,
Language Skills, Disguise Skills, Information Assessment.  

Now I'm stuck as to how to integrate the 'get more abiulities' 'get better
at abilities' and ranking (with or without ep considerations).  Perhaps
this whole grouping into fields structure isn't leading anywhere.  Any
ideas?  Comments, discussion?

Regards,
Sally


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Just a quick reply concerning

> [...]  Also, the abilities or skill-ettes, (sorry Ian, frypans kept
> leaping to the mind), were becoming unbalanced - some having more stuff
> than others.

Don't worry too much about unbalanced "skillettes".

Some things in the other professional skills are more useful than others as is shown by the order in
which they choose the skills, e.g.  Troubadours (even those who take up the skill just to maximise
their offensiveness with trumpet &/or bagpipes) normally take "simulate emotion" or "acrobatics"
early on; most MilScientists take "skirmish."

Aside:  Rather than skillet, do you prefer the term "micro-competency"


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Firstly, thanks for the work Sally. I'll comment on the specific abilities
at a later stage.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz [mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz]
> 
> Aside:  Rather than skillet, do you prefer the term "micro-competency"
> 
> 

The broader areas being fields fits with mil sci and (kind of) philosopher.
Other skills talk about abilities, but these are normally fairly specific.

sub-skills that give abilities? eg Hiding sub-skill (or sub-field if you
prefer) gives two specific abilities: find hiding place, stay hidden.

Can I just see if I have understood the proposal correctly? Not just the
technical framework, but the approach.

Rank 0: boosted observation skills, so more likely to perceive stuff
(including secret doors, traps etc), but can't do anything else special with
these abilities. Bonuses to perception-based stuff at GM whim.
You _also_ choose a field (eg fieldwork)? - I found the language a little
unclear. Another option would be to delay this until rank 1 (like
mechanician), but rk0 it seems a bit 'light' if we do this.

If you have a field, you have a basic competence in each of its sub-fields.
You can attempt the abilities with a much better chance than someone without
the field (there not being too much difference between 'amateur' and 'the
wrong sort of spy' in this regard.) Closest equivalent to this approach that
we have now would be mechanician? Formula might, for example, let you add
your appropriate stat to the base chance (or give a halfway OK base chance
in the first place). Might also take into account overall Spy rank (although
I think overall rank is less important to Spy than it is to say Courtier -
IMO)

Later ranks: choose another field, or two sub-fields (which can be
double-upped). This gives another (rank-based) bonus to base chance for the
abilities within the subfields. Effective rank can be higher than overall
rank due to double-ups.

Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Errol said:
>Can I just see if I have understood the proposal correctly? Not just the
>technical framework, but the approach.

My intention was not quite as you described, no doubt due to my fuzzy
language.
Yes, at rank 0 get observation skills, and one broad field.  
BUT When one gets a broad field, then they get the introductory paragraph
bit, but not the actual sub skill abilities until they choose the two at
the next rank.  This to give the diversity of mid ranked spies.
Yes, the subsequent ranking bit seemed to be what I meant.

Regards,
Sally

>Rank 0: boosted observation skills, so more likely to perceive stuff
>(including secret doors, traps etc), but can't do anything else special with
>these abilities. Bonuses to perception-based stuff at GM whim.
>You _also_ choose a field (eg fieldwork)? - I found the language a little
>unclear. Another option would be to delay this until rank 1 (like
>mechanician), but rk0 it seems a bit 'light' if we do this.
>
>If you have a field, you have a basic competence in each of its sub-fields.
>You can attempt the abilities with a much better chance than someone without
>the field (there not being too much difference between 'amateur' and 'the
>wrong sort of spy' in this regard.) Closest equivalent to this approach that
>we have now would be mechanician? Formula might, for example, let you add
>your appropriate stat to the base chance (or give a halfway OK base chance
>in the first place). Might also take into account overall Spy rank (although
>I think overall rank is less important to Spy than it is to say Courtier -
>IMO)
>
>Later ranks: choose another field, or two sub-fields (which can be
>double-upped). This gives another (rank-based) bonus to base chance for the
>abilities within the subfields. Effective rank can be higher than overall
>rank due to double-ups.
>
>Cheers
>Errol
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --