Once again a call for comment regarding theif as it has been in playtest now
for a few quarters.

Other than Andrew disliking the format and Bernard not trying it because
Andrew doesn't like the format are there any other comments on it?

For those who havn't loked at it yet, it is on the www.dragonquest.org.nz
site.

Mandos
/s


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

I don't like Thief having eighteen subskills that they learn one per
rank. I think a model where they have a broad range of things they can
do, getting significantly better at each rank, with some broadening of
skills as they advance is more suitable.

A low rank Thief is too limited in what they can attempt, otherwise.

"Format" is quite different from this.

And Bernard can and does think for himself.

Looking forward to hearing pros and cons on Mandos's thief proposal.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 7:09 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Theif



Once again a call for comment regarding theif as it has been in playtest
now for a few quarters.

Other than Andrew disliking the format and Bernard not trying it because
Andrew doesn't like the format are there any other comments on it?

For those who havn't loked at it yet, it is on the
www.dragonquest.org.nz site.

Mandos
/s


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

My opinion on Spy having too many sub-skills was considered very wrong by several gods, so i was surprised that new-thief would receive similar criticism.

It appears there needs to be some discussion or at least thought put into the structure of the skills. It may be that spy is an 'intellectual' skill whereas thief is rather the opposite. OTOH, it could become confusing if there are too many types of skill structure.

My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy structure (plethora of sub-skills gained one per rank - also used by courtier, troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this is too hard for the GM to keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time - easier if there are large sub-skills.

Can those who have played the new Spy (or played in games where it was apparent) give comment on the effect of that structure?

Or is this the wrong platform for that style of discussion, and a workshop would be the best way forward?

Ian

> 
> From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/03/02 Wed AM 09:24:59 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Thief
> 
> I don't like Thief having eighteen subskills that they learn one per
> rank. I think a model where they have a broad range of things they can
> do, getting significantly better at each rank, with some broadening of
> skills as they advance is more suitable.
> 
> A low rank Thief is too limited in what they can attempt, otherwise.
> 
> "Format" is quite different from this.
> 
> And Bernard can and does think for himself.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing pros and cons on Mandos's thief proposal.
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 7:09 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Theif
> 
> 
> 
> Once again a call for comment regarding theif as it has been in playtest
> now for a few quarters.
> 
> Other than Andrew disliking the format and Bernard not trying it because
> Andrew doesn't like the format are there any other comments on it?
> 
> For those who havn't loked at it yet, it is on the
> www.dragonquest.org.nz site.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:55, dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy structure (plethora of sub-skills gained one per rank - also used by courtier, troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this is too hard for the GM to keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time - easier if there are large sub-skills.

I haven't looked at the proposed skill, but I'd point out that instead
of 1 subskill + 1 per rank, you could do (e.g.) 4 subskills + 1/2 ranks.
This doesn't introduce a new skill structure, but addresses the problem
that a low-ranked thief couldn't do much. So long as the subskills have
rank-dependent base chances, there is still incentive to rank.


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

dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>My opinion on Spy having too many sub-skills was considered very wrong by several gods...
>
Hi Ian,

I would hope that people simply disagreed with you, or did not agree 
with your analysis of Spy, rather than felt that your opinion was 
wrong.  Although we can quantify something like sub-skills, "too many" 
remains a matter of preference -- it is possible to support the general 
"sub-skill" style skill structure and still think that the proposed 
sub-skills are too numerous or inappropriate.  (Disclosure: I quite 
liked Spy when it was proposed, and liked Thief rather less.  I haven't 
playtested either. There remains parts of Thief that I wouldn't want to 
use).

>...so i was surprised that new-thief would receive similar criticism.
>  
>
 From the same GMs?

>It appears there needs to be some discussion or at least thought put into the structure of the skills. It may be that spy is an 'intellectual' skill whereas thief is rather the opposite. OTOH, it could become confusing if there are too many types of skill structure.
>  
>
DQ has traditionally had two basic skill structures (and some variants 
thereof): some of the original DQ skills were "inclusive" in nature; the 
character got all of the skill at Rank 0 and then just got better at it 
-- Thief, for example. Other skills were "exclusive", or nearly so; 
every Rank the character picked up part of the skill, and could often 
continue to acquire more of the skill even after Rank 10 -- Healer and 
Troubador were skills of this sort... and show two variants: Healer a 
linear progression of sub-skills and Troubador random access.

Over the years that we have been revising and adding skills most have 
followed the exclusive model as this seemed to be the more flexible and 
(more importantly) allowed for the greatest diversity in characters. Two 
Rank 5 Thieves have essentially the same skill, just with different Base 
Chances; two Rank 5 Troubadors may have little in common, and this seems 
to allow the best party interaction with the least duplication of skills.

The costs/benefits of inclusive and exclusive skills would be different 
in a single-GM campaign, where a new PC is typically created to 
complement the abilities of exiting party members, than it is in our 
multi-GM campaign with ad hoc parties.

My preference for multi-GM DQ is certainly for the exclusive model, but 
the sub-skills need to be appropriate in both number and content.

>My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy structure (plethora of sub-skills gained one per rank - also used by courtier, troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this is too hard for the GM to keep track of...
>
Could you explain a bit what you think is the overhead to the GM?  It 
appears to me that Thief is largely active in nature -- that is, the PC 
must actively pick a pocket, or disarm a trap, etc.  And, DQ skills 
being as they are, every PC will have a different % of these things even 
if they have the same Rank as another PC, so even with the current skill 
a PC will ask to pick a lock and I'll have to ask them their %.

>, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time - easier if there are large sub-skills.
>  
>
True -- and skills shouldn't replace roleplay either.  I don't, for 
example, like the Intimidation sub-skill much. On the one hand there is 
the implication that a Thief without the sub-skill cannot intimidate, 
and that one with the sub-skill can, even if the PC doensn't.  It also 
allows NPCs to intimidate PCs and force reactions... more the realm of 
magical charms than Thief skill.

Cheers,
Martin


-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

IMV the problem with spy is that because the skills generally involve role
playing as apposed to a dice role it is very easy for sophisticated players
who have read the skill write up to play as a spy without the spy skill. 

Player: "I'm going to see if I can get him to do what I want (seduce) him
this is how I am going to do it".  "Or Lets create a rumor XXX this is how I
will go about this" 

no wait that's courtier.  

On the other hand the player who is not so sophisticated - or who plays an
unsophisticated character - may not be able to propose a sensible approach
that the GM will accept as reasonable.

This has made spy and courtier largely pointless - except for character
feel. Parties don't demand that the character communicating on behalf of the
party has courtier they demand that the player can do a good job of it.


Can GM's keep track of what each player can and cannot do and are many
sub-skills making this more difficult?

When I read Thief it seems to avoid this problem, the sub-skills are mostly
quite useful and not commonly tried by players with out the skill.

"I'm going to mug that guy and asses the value of his loot".  (unless I'm an
assassin and merchant)!

The problem is the more we create guidelines for role playing as opposed to
gaming - the more we need to limit what non-skilled characters can role
play.  Parties need healers because stopping bleeding cannot be role played
by a character with out the healer skill.

Don't get me wrong I'm not terribly interested in gaming - I'm just
attempting to draw attention to the balance needed in creating rules for
role playing.

Weather or not there are too many sub-skills in thief is something I do not
have an answer to.

Hamish   


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:55 AM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Thief


My opinion on Spy having too many sub-skills was considered very wrong by
several gods, so i was surprised that new-thief would receive similar
criticism.

It appears there needs to be some discussion or at least thought put into
the structure of the skills. It may be that spy is an 'intellectual' skill
whereas thief is rather the opposite. OTOH, it could become confusing if
there are too many types of skill structure.

My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy structure
(plethora of sub-skills gained one per rank - also used by courtier,
troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this is too hard for the GM to
keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the
subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time - easier if there
are large sub-skills.

Can those who have played the new Spy (or played in games where it was
apparent) give comment on the effect of that structure?

Or is this the wrong platform for that style of discussion, and a workshop
would be the best way forward?

Ian

> 
> From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/03/02 Wed AM 09:24:59 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Thief
> 
> I don't like Thief having eighteen subskills that they learn one per
> rank. I think a model where they have a broad range of things they can
> do, getting significantly better at each rank, with some broadening of
> skills as they advance is more suitable.
> 
> A low rank Thief is too limited in what they can attempt, otherwise.
> 
> "Format" is quite different from this.
> 
> And Bernard can and does think for himself.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing pros and cons on Mandos's thief proposal.
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 7:09 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Theif
> 
> 
> 
> Once again a call for comment regarding theif as it has been in playtest
> now for a few quarters.
> 
> Other than Andrew disliking the format and Bernard not trying it because
> Andrew doesn't like the format are there any other comments on it?
> 
> For those who havn't loked at it yet, it is on the
> www.dragonquest.org.nz site.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Johanna and Hamish wrote:

>This has made spy and courtier largely pointless - except for character
>feel. Parties don't demand that the character communicating on behalf of the
>party has courtier they demand that the player can do a good job of it.
>  
>
IMO:  Absolutely the player has to do a good job -- skills, etc should 
offer support not substitution.

Courtier is a very cheap skill and quite a lot of its purpose is 
"character feel" -- my PC picked up a few ranks to mark his transition 
from serf background to educated and landed gentleman.

Some of the sub-skills give abilities that really don't work otherwise 
(e.g. playing instruments), but some (like bureaucracy) require 
roleplaying... though I would hope that GMs might assess the success of 
the party's chosen communicator based on roleplay + skills + languages + 
race + whatever.

Basically if you send the smelly and badly dressed Orc ranger who only 
speaks goblin tongues into negotiate with the Elven court then the 
player is going to have to do a hell of a good job just to get out with 
his skin. :-)

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

On 02/03/2005, at 11:31, Martin Dickson wrote:

> Johanna and Hamish wrote:
>
>> This has made spy and courtier largely pointless - except for 
>> character
>> feel. Parties don't demand that the character communicating on behalf 
>> of the
>> party has courtier they demand that the player can do a good job of 
>> it.
>>
> IMO:  Absolutely the player has to do a good job -- skills, etc should 
> offer support not substitution.
>
> Courtier is a very cheap skill and quite a lot of its purpose is 
> "character feel" -- my PC picked up a few ranks to mark his transition 
> from serf background to educated and landed gentleman.
>
> Some of the sub-skills give abilities that really don't work otherwise 
> (e.g. playing instruments), but some (like bureaucracy) require 
> roleplaying... though I would hope that GMs might assess the success 
> of the party's chosen communicator based on roleplay + skills + 
> languages + race + whatever.

Yes indeed. A player with high ranked courtier may be able to get away 
with slightly less skill in the roleplaying of the interaction, but no 
matter how high your rank if you say insulting things, all it will do 
is make them very skillfully insulting.

no comment to make on thief - I haven't looked closely at the skill,

clare


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C51EB0.8E6A5DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:31 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Thief
> 
> 
<snip>
> 
> Basically if you send the smelly and badly dressed Orc ranger 
> who only 
> speaks goblin tongues into negotiate with the Elven court then the 
> player is going to have to do a hell of a good job just to 
> get out with 
> his skin. :-)
> 

The elves are hardly going to want _keep_ his skin, so they may as well give
it back - possibly neatly folded?

:-)

Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C51EB0.8E6A5DA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Thief</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Martin Dickson [<A HREF="mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com">mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:31 a.m.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Thief</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Basically if you send the smelly and badly dressed Orc ranger </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; who only </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; speaks goblin tongues into negotiate with the Elven court then the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; player is going to have to do a hell of a good job just to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; get out with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; his skin. :-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>The elves are hardly going to want _keep_ his skin, so they may as well give it back - possibly neatly folded?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>:-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C51EB0.8E6A5DA0--


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

Errol Cavit wrote:

> The elves are hardly going to want _keep_ his skin, so they may as 
> well give it back - possibly neatly folded?
>
:-)  "Thank you for the Orc you sent.  We've had him cleaned and pressed".

The other thing with Courtier is that it can be a useful shorthand for 
keeping adventures on track... roleplaying every NPC interaction in 
realtime can be fun, but it can also take more time than is 
realistically available.  There can be times when it is better to "game" 
things, e.g. Player: "I'll go see my contacts at the elven court for 
information relevant to the mission.  I have Rk 6 courtier, speak elven 
at 8 and have done some work for the court before". GM: "OK, it takes a 
few days and 1000sp, and you find out..."

Ranks in Spy might be used in a similar fashion for getting informtion 
-- Thief feels more interactive and realtime to me.

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

To forestall people getting hung up on incorrect details...

The latest proposed Thief gives all thieves 4 basic skills (Sneaking, Foraging/Scrounging, Town
Navigation, Thiefsign), and 3 plus 1 per rank of the 17 optionals.
And at Rank 7 you can buy additional optional abilities (for 1,000xp and 2 weeks), easier than
other similar skills which require Rk 10 before you can buy extras.
Most (if not all) subskills have rank based BC%.


Michael Woodhams said:
> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:55, dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy structure (plethora of sub-skills
>> gained one per rank - also used by courtier, troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this
>> is too hard for the GM to keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the
>> subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time - easier if there are large
>> sub-skills.
>
> I haven't looked at the proposed skill, but I'd point out that instead of 1 subskill + 1 per
> rank, you could do (e.g.) 4 subskills + 1/2 ranks. This doesn't introduce a new skill structure,
> but addresses the problem that a low-ranked thief couldn't do much. So long as the subskills
> have rank-dependent base chances, there is still incentive to rank.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

And now the less factual and more opinionated view...

I'm a lazy GM, I tend to forget about most of the subskills and just adjust reactions, results and
chances based on Rk in appropriate skills and roleplaying.

As a player I pick and choose my subskills carefully to suit the abilities I want my character to
have.

So I like one or the other approach depending on my current role.


I think that active abilities with specific base chances and effects suit sub-skills well as it is
generally looked after by the player.
And general abilities that are usually passive, and generally roleplayed rather than resolved by a
dice roll suit broad inclusive structures.
That said, there are some exceptions to this. :)



And naturally anyone who disagrees with this is wrong because I'm always right (except when I
decide that I'm not), and yes the world does revolve around me and the sun does shine from my
behind.  Which is a bit annoying when you're trying to get to sleep and applying the sunscreen
constantly can be a bit embarrassing at work.
Is it lunch time yet? ...

Cheers, Stephen.


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

I, like Martin & others, prefer characters which have some individuality.
Why should a pickpocket want to climb walls, let alone be able to?  With
some skills (e.g. Navigator) all the skill-ets *are* effectively
intertwined; but not necessarily for thief; definitely not for spy.

Do you expect your E&E to be equally skilled in ALL the special knowledge
spells ...?

> Can GM's keep track of what each player can and cannot do and are many
> sub-skills making this more difficult?

Does it matter?  I hardly see the GM having to worry about it.  Many thief
skills are active, so that the GM can just ask "What's your base chance of
picking a pocket?" (or whatever).   Likewise, if GM is considering whether
an NPC skill succeeds, The GM can broadly ask the party "What are your ranks
in Thief-skill Pocket picking" ... the same way they can ask "what ranks
does anyone have in counter spy?" or "Could everyone except the human make a
perception check"  --- easy enough.

> .... My belief is that this is too hard for the GM to
> keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill can 'roleplay' through the
> subskill, thereby making the skill a waste of EP and time -
> easier if there are large sub-skills.

I would almost certainly allow someone role-playing a clue or a suspicion
... but I would allow the professional to get more information.  Moreover
the professional is more likely to get the information faster, more
accurately (probably with a good idea of the error or other caveats that may
apply) and, above all, more subtly.

But sometimes there is not the time to role-play.  I've learnt the hard way
that you cannot allow players to spend  as much time as they want talking to
NPCs.  Moreover if one character is indulging in the role-playing in finding
out the information, then that threatens to monopolise the GMs time
disproportionately.

Whereas the spy, can simply perform the skill -- especially if some nights
previously they had already established to the GM that they would be seeking
suitable contacts, &/or give a clear overview of their approach &/or tie it
in with other skills, etc.  Then the GM states what is concluded or
analytically observed by the spy.  This is also much clearer for the party
to understand: rather than listen to a lot of waffle, which can cause
confusion & encourage arguments later in the mission, they get the succinct
version.

Even if the roleplaying is done by email or some other source which does not
monopolise the GM's time on the night, you might then have the *player* some
time later saying to the others "Oh, didn't I mention the bit about
swallowing town whole ... I thought I did"

> Can those who have played the new Spy (or played in games where it was
> apparent) give comment on the effect of that structure?

Easier for the GM to make the necessary points clearly & quickly so that the
party can get on with the real part of the game.

Michael


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

Right - so what I have got from the spy courtier thread is:  a role playing
game requires the players to be good at role playing regardless of what
skills there characters might have! :) Well that makes sense!

Agree - Stephen (am I aloud to agree or do you get to decide:)) I like thief
because it has playable skills with dice roles.

I don't think I have ever used any sub-skill from spy or Courtier but refer
to the level of the overall skill often - I did enjoy choosing the sub
skills though.

H   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:51 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Thief

And now the less factual and more opinionated view...

I'm a lazy GM, I tend to forget about most of the subskills and just adjust
reactions, results and
chances based on Rk in appropriate skills and roleplaying.

As a player I pick and choose my subskills carefully to suit the abilities I
want my character to
have.

So I like one or the other approach depending on my current role.


I think that active abilities with specific base chances and effects suit
sub-skills well as it is
generally looked after by the player.
And general abilities that are usually passive, and generally roleplayed
rather than resolved by a
dice roll suit broad inclusive structures.
That said, there are some exceptions to this. :)



And naturally anyone who disagrees with this is wrong because I'm always
right (except when I
decide that I'm not), and yes the world does revolve around me and the sun
does shine from my
behind.  Which is a bit annoying when you're trying to get to sleep and
applying the sunscreen
constantly can be a bit embarrassing at work.
Is it lunch time yet? ...

Cheers, Stephen.


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

> My understanding is that Mandos has merely applied the Spy
> structure (plethora of sub-skills gained one per rank - also used
> by courtier, troubadour etc) to thief. My beleif is that this is
> too hard for the GM to keep track of, and PCs with no spy skill
> can 'roleplay' through the subskill, thereby making the skill a
> waste of EP and time - easier if there are large sub-skills.

Originally that was the case. The skills have always been tied together and
so keeping them similar was a goal.

BUT...

As time went on I became more and more aware of how I was using thief in
game. I was utilising my own perceptions and idea's of being a thief and
virtually never using the abilities within the skill. It became obvious that
it was a poorly written, character limiting skill.

If you break the skill down at the moment you get very little you can
actually do. So I set about designing the skill along the spy lines ensuring
that for people who want the current theif you can get the abilities at Rank
0 or 1 and you can improve them with rank as you can now.

In fact if you want to you can have exactly the same skill with the new
design as you can under the old one. (With the exception of safes which the
feeling I got was they were not really in genre.)

As an addition to that there are other skills you can add to add more depth
and personal style to the thief, allowing for Muggers, burglars,
pursesnatchers etc.

I also tok the opportunity to tidy up some of the base chances to make them
a bit more GM friendly.

Basically the upshot is...

You can stay with the current theif. Just choose the abilities that it has
and no more....

....or you can be the kind of theif you want to be and hopefully be able to
use some of those skills in a party environment.

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>(With the exception of safes which the
>feeling I got was they were not really in genre.)
>  
>
A safe is a strong cupboard or room with a decent lock on it.  Whatever 
lock picking abilities are in a revised Thief will handily cover safes too.

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

Forwarded on request:
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz] 

Can you please forward this to the list.

> I can see that Spy needed to change from almost a carbon copy of thief

> with a different name and Ep cost.
>
> I like that an attempt at some sort of consistency of format with 
> other the skills was made.
>
> I can see that the changes are an attempt to allow personalization of 
> these skills for the characters.
>
> However, Like Andrew I do think that Thief as proposed is now too 
> weak.
>
> I also agree with Ian that some players maybe able to role-play though

> some of the spy sub skills. This I do not see as such a problem. It 
> enables parties without a spy to still get some information and still 
> allows those players who have trouble Role-playing though some 
> situations a chance to perform those actions. After all skills are not

> always stand alone things, I would for instance allow an Assassin with

> Troubadour, Acting and Make-up sub-skills to disguise themselves to 
> get close to a victim. The Spy, Disguise just covers the same plus a 
> little more (Disguising Animals) for only one rank/ sub-skill slot not

> two.
>
> I'm not sure there are too many sub-skills to Spy, I know that as 
> written my Rk 0 Spy is only good for its memory (maybe), and that I 
> would need to have at least 3 or 4 rks to get the sub-skills that 
> would let her pretend to be the maid and brake into an Inn room to 
> search it. This Skill too is weak; perhaps this one needs to be one of

> those with 3 or 4 sub-skills at rk 0 plus 1 per rank.
>
>
> The proposed Thief currently gives 3 optional abilities plus 1 per rk.

> But with 18 sub-skills to pick from it's too split up, and some of it 
> doesn't make sense. Your poor street urchin, market stall raider, 
> needs maybe 5 or so options just to do the Foraging.
>
> Perhaps this one would be better split into Types of Thieves with a 
> range of abilities that can be done skillfully for each type. E.g. 
> Burglars get Climbing, Escapology, Picking locks, Memory, traps, etc. 
> Pick Pockets get Pickpocket, Blending, Team work, distraction etc. 
> Muggers/ highwaymen get Mugging hiding Intimidation, etc.
>
> Note, this list of options and types is just a quick sketch to give 
> you the idea not a complete list.
>
> Some options should end up in more than 1 Type some may end up as 
> general skills again like assess. Let characters take another thief 
> type every so many ranks, and thus gain more abilities. Or allow them 
> to specialize instead for a bonus of say +2 ranks.
> This way, low rank thieves can do something, and high ranked ones
either
> do it way better or are more generalists.
>
> It means rewriting the Skill again I know, but ...
>
> Helen
>


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