>
>
>Errol said:
>
>>Can I just see if I have understood the proposal correctly? Not just the
>>technical framework, but the approach.
>>
>Sally replied:
>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.
>
 From a perspective of DQ skill structures the proposed Spy skill is 
most like Philosopher with its Realms and Fields.

But, unlike Realms, the Spy category introductory paragraph appears to 
confer little ability, though it costs the equivalent of two sub-skill 
acquisitions.  For example, the Language skills introduction suggests 
that Spies will be better at languages, but all of the abilities and 
percentages are encapsulated in the subfields.

Suggestion:  Don't charge for categories.  Allow these to be learnt at 
specific ranks (free) and represent a broadening knowledge that simply 
comes with increasing rank.  E.g. Rank 0, 3, 6, 8, and 10.  A PC who is 
not particularly interesting in a category can simply choose not to 
learn subfields.

Not sure about "specialisation" here -- though no really strong feeling. 
 It was added to Courtier and Troub mostly to provide for PC flavour 
abilities rather than serious adventuring.  With Specialisation one can 
become a top flight flutist (for example) by only selecting that 
ability.  At Rk 4 the PC will have effective Rk 8 in flute, but will 
have only the flute subskill and the other two they got at Rk 0.  I'm 
just not sure that this oddity is necessary for a more "adventuring" 
focused skill like Spy, and it just adds extra complexity.

Overall, I like the categories and most of the subskills.  I will state, 
perhaps needlessly, once again for the record that I do not think that 
all of lock-picking,  safe-cracking and trap detection/removal should be 
in Spy.  These are the primary Thief abilities and should remain unique 
to that skill. (Detecting traps is probably the most often used 
"adventuring" Thief ability, and picking locks is often used too).

Request: Remove primary Thief skills from Spy.

The skill structure -- well, not convinced.  It seems to be that 
Disguise (for example) is made up of its subskills... that is to say 
that changing your hair, and your walk, and your accent are all part of 
pretending to be a foreigner and should be learnt together.  Conversely 
I can understand the desire to have low to mid-Rk PCs having different 
specialities.  Could this not be acheived though by simply selecting a 
Category at specific ranks and gaining all sub-skills automatically?  If 
they were gained at 0,3,6,8 & 10 then two Rk 6 Spies would each have 
3/5ths of the skill.  Is that sufficient flexibility?  (Or. beef up the 
Rk 0 Observation abilitie a bit -- and add in the Spy ring part of 
Network -- and make the categories at 1,3,6,8 & 10).

So... overall suggestions.  Simplify structure of skill.  Have 
categories gained at specific ranks and contain all their sub-skills (to 
be practised at overall Spy Rk).  Balance the categories (removing 
primary Thief skills will aid in this). Make observation specialisations 
into subskills same as rest.

Finally -- just to say that I really don't mean to sound negative.  :-) 
 I think this Spy skill is much closer to a desirable fantasy/fictional 
spy than the current skill and that you've done an excellent job.

Regards,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

I agree with Martin about some of the problems of the field - sub field
approach. However, I'd rather not see Spy chopped into 5 blocks so that 2
Rank 5 spies will have the two "best" blocks plus one other. If we can keep
the ~20 abilities, but make them more independent, then spies will be able
to vary more. A flat structure works best where possible. 

I was thinking that you could pick up another subskill for 500 or 1000 at
ANY rank (rank over 5? 8?), not just rank 10. This means that if you want to
be a generalist, you can be, or you can instead spend the time & EP being
good at a moderate number of subskills.

Again, with Martin, even the first draft was significantly better than the
current Spy, and further iterations should make a really good skill.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
Sent: Friday, 11 October 2002 10:02 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spy - a new angle


>
>
>Errol said:
>
>>Can I just see if I have understood the proposal correctly? Not just the
>>technical framework, but the approach.
>>
>Sally replied:
>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.
>
 From a perspective of DQ skill structures the proposed Spy skill is 
most like Philosopher with its Realms and Fields.

But, unlike Realms, the Spy category introductory paragraph appears to 
confer little ability, though it costs the equivalent of two sub-skill 
acquisitions.  For example, the Language skills introduction suggests 
that Spies will be better at languages, but all of the abilities and 
percentages are encapsulated in the subfields.

Suggestion:  Don't charge for categories.  Allow these to be learnt at 
specific ranks (free) and represent a broadening knowledge that simply 
comes with increasing rank.  E.g. Rank 0, 3, 6, 8, and 10.  A PC who is 
not particularly interesting in a category can simply choose not to 
learn subfields.

Not sure about "specialisation" here -- though no really strong feeling. 
 It was added to Courtier and Troub mostly to provide for PC flavour 
abilities rather than serious adventuring.  With Specialisation one can 
become a top flight flutist (for example) by only selecting that 
ability.  At Rk 4 the PC will have effective Rk 8 in flute, but will 
have only the flute subskill and the other two they got at Rk 0.  I'm 
just not sure that this oddity is necessary for a more "adventuring" 
focused skill like Spy, and it just adds extra complexity.

Overall, I like the categories and most of the subskills.  I will state, 
perhaps needlessly, once again for the record that I do not think that 
all of lock-picking,  safe-cracking and trap detection/removal should be 
in Spy.  These are the primary Thief abilities and should remain unique 
to that skill. (Detecting traps is probably the most often used 
"adventuring" Thief ability, and picking locks is often used too).

Request: Remove primary Thief skills from Spy.

The skill structure -- well, not convinced.  It seems to be that 
Disguise (for example) is made up of its subskills... that is to say 
that changing your hair, and your walk, and your accent are all part of 
pretending to be a foreigner and should be learnt together.  Conversely 
I can understand the desire to have low to mid-Rk PCs having different 
specialities.  Could this not be acheived though by simply selecting a 
Category at specific ranks and gaining all sub-skills automatically?  If 
they were gained at 0,3,6,8 & 10 then two Rk 6 Spies would each have 
3/5ths of the skill.  Is that sufficient flexibility?  (Or. beef up the 
Rk 0 Observation abilitie a bit -- and add in the Spy ring part of 
Network -- and make the categories at 1,3,6,8 & 10).

So... overall suggestions.  Simplify structure of skill.  Have 
categories gained at specific ranks and contain all their sub-skills (to 
be practised at overall Spy Rk).  Balance the categories (removing 
primary Thief skills will aid in this). Make observation specialisations 
into subskills same as rest.

Finally -- just to say that I really don't mean to sound negative.  :-) 
 I think this Spy skill is much closer to a desirable fantasy/fictional 
spy than the current skill and that you've done an excellent job.

Regards,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

If the blocks are balanced and and cover different areas of interest then there
are no two "best" blocks for rank 5 spies to have.
I think this should be an argument for balanced blocks rather than de-blocking.


One thing to keep in mind is GMs remembering the abilities of their PC spies.
 It's not too hard to remember that Kate is a socially oriented spy and Kryan
is a military scout and make descisions on what they are likely to notice. 
It is somewhat harder to remember that Kate is Rk 9 in polite intimidation,
Rk 6 in forgery and Rk 4 in social observation when trying to decide how likely
she is to notice the curtain twitching as if someone is behind it.
[Note Characters and Skills mentioned in this paragraph are not based on any
real or imagined characters or skills.  Any similarity is pure slander.]

>I agree with Martin about some of the problems of the field - sub field
>approach. However, I'd rather not see Spy chopped into 5 blocks so that 2
>Rank 5 spies will have the two "best" blocks plus one other. If we can keep

>the ~20 abilities, but make them more independent, then spies will be able

>to vary more. A flat structure works best where possible.


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AndrewW@datacom.co.nz [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]

> 
> 
> I agree with Martin about some of the problems of the field - 
> sub field
> approach. However, I'd rather not see Spy chopped into 5 
> blocks so that 2
> Rank 5 spies will have the two "best" blocks plus one other. 
> If we can keep
> the ~20 abilities, but make them more independent, then spies 
> will be able
> to vary more. A flat structure works best where possible. 
> 

I am not so keen on a structure that gives Rk10 Spies all having exactly the
same abilities. The 'profession' is so broad that I think there should be
differences even at this level. On the other hand, how useful the individual
Spy skills are depends to a extent on other skills (and characteristics eg
race) that the 'professional' has (especially if the 'pick lock' stuff stays
exclusively in thief).

I agree with Martin that a Field that gives essentially no actual ability
_shouldn't_ 'take up' opportunities to get real 'here are your base chances'
abilities.


> I was thinking that you could pick up another subskill for 
> 500 or 1000 at
> ANY rank (rank over 5? 8?), not just rank 10. This means that 
> if you want to
> be a generalist, you can be, or you can instead spend the 
> time & EP being
> good at a moderate number of subskills.

Note that you can more-or-less do the equivalent in the Philosopher skill,
by using 'Knowledge' adventuring skill.


> 
> Again, with Martin, even the first draft was significantly 
> better than the
> current Spy, and further iterations should make a really good skill.
> 
Absolutely agree.
A small point about version numbering. Presumably the approved published
version will be Spy 2.0, with any further published amendments will be 2.1
etc. Shouldn't the draft iterations be 2.0.1, 2.0.2 etc (2.0a, 2.0b,
whatever)? Otherwise, at the current iteration rate, it's going to get
confusing.

Cheers
Errol


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

After reading through the new Spy I am really impressed withe the catagories
and subfields however I am not a fan of the philosopher style of layout.

What I recommend is taking the broad catagories and using them to produce a
rough base level skill package, with the subfields being used as ranking
options as you improve.

Mandos
/s


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

errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:

>I am not so keen on a structure that gives Rk10 Spies all having exactly the
>same abilities. The 'profession' is so broad that I think there should be
>differences even at this level.
>
There is some value in this as Rk 10 is the top Rk a PC can get, so 
allowing further subskill acquisition at this point is a) desirable to 
slow/draw out Top Out, and b) standard in many skills.

>>[Andrew] I was thinking that you could pick up another subskill for 
>>500 or 1000 at ANY rank (rank over 5? 8?), not just rank 10.
>>
>
>Note that you can more-or-less do the equivalent in the Philosopher skill,
>by using 'Knowledge' adventuring skill.
>
Ewww... kinda.  The Knowledge Adv skill was created as an alternative 
for people who didn't really want to be Philosophers... and then of 
course the question came up as to how the two would interact.  The 
simplest solution is the one that ended up in the rules; Knowledge Area 
= Philo sub-field.

Yes, it is possible to use Knowledge to add extra sub-fields below Rk 
10, though not very economic.... I think.... [fiddles with 
spreadsheet]... well... it depends.  If you're getting a Realm it 
certainly isn't (A Rk 3 Philo going to Rk 4 is effectively paying  840ep 
per sub-field, but is also getting 4000ep worth of Realm.  Also takes 
only 4 weeks for the whole of Rk 4, whereas a single Kn takes as long). 
At some Rks its OK... (Rank 8 and 9 have the most expensive sub-field 
cost at 800, and 900, but only 1.2 and 1.3 weeks per).  Also, extra subs 
will aid in some questions but not affect overall Rak... anyhoo...I 
guess if you've got some Ep and lots of free time then Kn is a 
reasonable way to supplement Philo below Rk 10.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]

> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >I am not so keen on a structure that gives Rk10 Spies all 
> having exactly the
> >same abilities. The 'profession' is so broad that I think 
> there should be
> >differences even at this level.
> >
> There is some value in this as Rk 10 is the top Rk a PC can get, so 
> allowing further subskill acquisition at this point is a) 
> desirable to 
> slow/draw out Top Out, 
> and b) standard in many skills.

Not following your point here. I don't have any problem with allowing extra
sub-skills past Rank 10. I just don't see the value in forcing _all_ Spies
to be the same at the 'instant' of Rk10 (and possibly Rk0) when we all seem
to be in agreement that spies come in many different forms.

> 
> >>[Andrew] I was thinking that you could pick up another subskill for 
> >>500 or 1000 at ANY rank (rank over 5? 8?), not just rank 10.
> >>
> >
> >Note that you can more-or-less do the equivalent in the 
> Philosopher skill,
> >by using 'Knowledge' adventuring skill.
> >
> Ewww... kinda.  

You're right. "kinda" would have been better than "more-or-less". Just
pointing out that there is some precedent.

The Knowledge Adv skill was created as an alternative 
> for people who didn't really want to be Philosophers... and then of 
> course the question came up as to how the two would interact.  The 
> simplest solution is the one that ended up in the rules; 
> Knowledge Area 
> = Philo sub-field.
> 
> Yes, it is possible to use Knowledge to add extra sub-fields below Rk 
> 10, though not very economic.... I think.... [fiddles with 
> spreadsheet]... well... it depends.  If you're getting a Realm it 
> certainly isn't <snip>
> 
The way I saw it was that I wanted a specific sub-field in a different
Realm, not being very interested in the general 'new' realm, and wanting to
develop my breadth in my existing Realm. (Realm you don't really want plus
field you don't really want have opportunity cost of 8+3 sub-fields worth in
existing realm). Time not too much of an issue, as the character was
doing/learning the stuff because it made sense for character development
(plus take into account ranking time in 'unwanted' ranks to get access to
sub-field.) May as well spend EP to 'lock in' the knowledge, and can use
Philo skill to help in research if the opportunity ever comes up. YMMV.

I'm also not sure if the top-down model is a good way to reflect the
available learning techniques - my gut feel is that the reverse might be
better (eg you _can't_ get the knowledge of a field _until_ you have at
least 2 sub-fields). I may be wrong, and it may have been explained why when
the skill was re-written.

Cheers
Errol


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

errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:

>Not following your point here.
>
Ahh... that'd be 'cos I was agreeing with you, and I think you're trying 
to see how I was disagreeing.  :-)     When I wrote: "There is some 
value in this..." I meant your argument about differences, not that 
there was value in making them all the same.

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

Ah. Must stop being so defensive. Need beer to loosen up. 2hrs to go....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin.dickson@peace.com 
> 
> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >Not following your point here.
> >
> Ahh... that'd be 'cos I was agreeing with you, and I think 
> you're trying 
> to see how I was disagreeing.  :-)     
>


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