| Subject | Re: [dq] Thief |
|---|---|
| From | Jacqui Smith |
| Date | Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:34:09 +1300 |
At 20:53 2/03/05, you wrote: >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. This does sound like a positive approach... especially if we include Tomb Robbers in there... which is what most adventurers have the thief skill for, to be honest. Or you could call them Dungeoneers to be more inclusive of other types of the frequently trapped and locked underground complexes that adventurers frequent. It would be feasible to use a similar approach to spy I think. For my 5sp worth on the new thief and spy skills.... On the plus side... They provide a structure for doing things like cyphering which is not covered in the current rules. They allow for different types of spies and thieves. Dungeoneers don't have to be pick-pockets. On the minus side... That structure is not as robust as the current structure. Low-level characters are unable to attempt the broad range of subskills they can in the current rules. I can also see the need for more counter-spy and anti-thief skills.... the sorts of things developed by palace guards and city guards respectively. It may be possible to cover these within the structure of Spy and Thief, but I don't see it yet. Jacqui -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Thief |
|---|---|
| From | Errol Cavit |
| Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:06:14 +1300 |
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_01C5203D.373E97B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 4 March 2005 9:34 a.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Thief > > > At 20:53 2/03/05, you wrote: > >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. > > This does sound like a positive approach... especially if we > include Tomb > Robbers in there... which is what most adventurers have the > thief skill > for, to be honest. As it's hard to use the skill as written for much else, this is partially self-fulfilling. I'd rather move past this stage. Or you could call them Dungeoneers to be > more inclusive > of other types of the frequently trapped and locked > underground complexes > that adventurers frequent. > What (sub)skills to you think a 'Dungeoneers' needs that aren't covered in 'Burglar'? I'm struggling to think of enough to warrant a whole 'nother type. I'm not convinced of the benefits of grouping together _Thief_ skills. As they are nearly always 'active', the details of the subskills can be tracked by the player, not the GM. If it is a situation that isn't being roleplayed in detail, then overall rank is probably enough of a guide for the GM, and as others have said, if a specific ability is required the GM can ask. Note the same comments don't always apply to Spy. > It would be feasible to use a similar approach to spy I think. > > For my 5sp worth on the new thief and spy skills.... > > On the plus side... > They provide a structure for doing things like cyphering which is not > covered in the current rules. > They allow for different types of spies and thieves. > Dungeoneers don't have > to be pick-pockets. > > On the minus side... > That structure is not as robust as the current structure. What do you mean by 'robust'? > Low-level characters are unable to attempt the broad range of > subskills > they can in the current rules. This my be a irritant (probably minor) for low-level thieves/spies, but is it bad for the game? Or even unrealistic? Just because some characters can't do as many things doesn't mean its a bad idea. I'm much happier with the idea that my character is a certain type of covert operator than having a set bunch of stereotypical dungeon-basher skills (plus add-ons I've never used like Pickpocket). > > I can also see the need for more counter-spy and anti-thief > skills.... the > sorts of things developed by palace guards and city guards > respectively. It > may be possible to cover these within the structure of Spy > and Thief, but I > don't see it yet. > Good point, the current Spy ability 'counterspy' doesn't really cover this well. Although I would expect a good Palace Guard officer to be a Spy. To throw a couple of ideas out there: Artisan - Guard (for senior NCOs and officers)? Does it fit in Mil Sci? Then again, do we need to provide a full-on career path for every NPC? GMs can give alert guards better chances of spotting PCs doing stuff than random conscript at end of shift - is a formal structure needed? Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5203D.373E97B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2653.12"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] Thief</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Jacqui Smith [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Friday, 4 March 2005 9:34 a.m.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Thief</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> At 20:53 2/03/05, you wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Perhaps this one would be better split into = Types of Thieves with a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > range of abilities that can be done = skillfully for each type. E.g.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > Burglars get Climbing, Escapology, = Picking locks, Memory, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> traps, etc.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > Pick Pockets get Pickpocket, = Blending, Team work, distraction etc.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > Muggers/ highwaymen get Mugging = hiding Intimidation, etc.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This does sound like a positive approach... = especially if we </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> include Tomb </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Robbers in there... which is what most = adventurers have the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> thief skill </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> for, to be honest. </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As it's hard to use the skill as written for much = else, this is partially self-fulfilling. I'd rather move past this = stage.</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Or you could call them Dungeoneers to be </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> more inclusive </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of other types of the frequently trapped and = locked </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> underground complexes </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> that adventurers frequent.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What (sub)skills to you think a 'Dungeoneers' needs = that aren't covered in 'Burglar'? I'm struggling to think of enough to = warrant a whole 'nother type.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm not convinced of the benefits of grouping = together _Thief_ skills. As they are nearly always 'active', the = details of the subskills can be tracked by the player, not the GM. If = it is a situation that isn't being roleplayed in detail, then overall = rank is probably enough of a guide for the GM, and as others have said, = if a specific ability is required the GM can ask.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note the same comments don't always apply to = Spy.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> It would be feasible to use a similar approach = to spy I think.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> For my 5sp worth on the new thief and spy = skills....</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> On the plus side...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> They provide a structure for doing things like = cyphering which is not </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> covered in the current rules.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> They allow for different types of spies and = thieves. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Dungeoneers don't have </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to be pick-pockets.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> On the minus side...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> That structure is not as robust as the current = structure.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What do you mean by 'robust'?</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Low-level characters are unable to attempt the = broad range of </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> subskills </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> they can in the current rules.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This my be a irritant (probably minor) for low-level = thieves/spies, but is it bad for the game? Or even unrealistic? Just = because some characters can't do as many things doesn't mean its a bad = idea. I'm much happier with the idea that my character is a certain = type of covert operator than having a set bunch of stereotypical = dungeon-basher skills (plus add-ons I've never used like = Pickpocket).</FONT></P> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I can also see the need for more counter-spy = and anti-thief </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> skills.... the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> sorts of things developed by palace guards and = city guards </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> respectively. It </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> may be possible to cover these within the = structure of Spy </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and Thief, but I </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> don't see it yet.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Good point, the current Spy ability 'counterspy' = doesn't really cover this well. Although I would expect a good Palace = Guard officer to be a Spy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>To throw a couple of ideas out there: Artisan - Guard = (for senior NCOs and officers)? Does it fit in Mil Sci?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Then again, do we need to provide a full-on career = path for every NPC? GMs can give alert guards better chances of = spotting PCs doing stuff than random conscript at end of shift - is a = formal structure needed?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5203D.373E97B0-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Thief |
|---|---|
| From | Martin Dickson |
| Date | Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:13:59 +1300 |
Errol Cavit wrote: > To throw a couple of ideas out there: Artisan - Guard (for senior NCOs > and officers)? Does it fit in Mil Sci? > Guard is not a good fit with Artisan. They do not create / sell products (e.g. carpenter) or provide easily quantifiable end consumer services (e.g. provide a better haircut). The "Yield" benefit might arguably be of use to a Thief-taker... but again, not really that appropriate. :-) Low ranks in Mil Sci may well be desirable. > Then again, do we need to provide a full-on career path for every NPC? > No. DQ has skills not careers. If you want an NPC to be a Tavern Keeper then you select for them a number of appropriate skills; Merchant + Artisan: Brewer + Weapon: Club, etc. We do not need a Tavern Keeper "skill". > GMs can give alert guards better chances of spotting PCs doing stuff > than random conscript at end of shift - is a formal structure needed? > Current skills should cover this. 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 -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Thief |
|---|---|
| From | Cosmo |
| Date | Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:09:26 +1300 |
Okay, I hate to put another spin on this debate, but I'm puzzled that people are concerned that low level thieves are being cheated out of a couple of abilities, considering how dangerously incompetent they are with the seven they receive under the current rules. This a clearly facetious presentation, largely the result of the horror of starting to Rank the skill recently, which I admit I wouldn't have bothered doing without the appeal of the possibility of the more flavoursome "pick and mix" option. (maxmin) My Rank Zero Thief (Old School) Very average (MD15, PC10) cutpurse Joe Nickit has just started out his career as a Thief. Let's see what he's learnt in the last two months... Cunning Joe has a 6% percent chance of picking that Rank 4 lock or a 2% chance of cracking that tricky Rank 4 safe! He's also got a 10% chance of spotting the traps on them, regardless of Rank, and a 5% chance of disarming a horrifying Rank 5 trap. Nothing will ever be safe again! He can "detect" if there are secret doors within 5 feet, 10% of the time he "spends time" looking. What happens when he flukes the roll is a bit Zen too. "If the GM’s roll on percentile dice is equal to or less than the success percentage, the thief senses that at least one hidden or secret door is in their detection area (but is not told how many)." What about where they are? If you know they are there somewhere are they still secret? And what the hell do you do if they are? Go to the council for the plans? Joe can take things off someone he's bludgeoned *unconscious*, not just sleepy, 95% of the time! Less if he's picked a fellow Thief, an Assassin or Spy! Healers should avoid Ranking Thief beyond Rank 0 to enjoy this spectacular extra chance of bringing knocked out people around so swiftly! He has a one in five chance of summoning up his Photographic memory, captured while staring at something for 4 solid minutes, within 24 hours. After that, it lies to him 80% of the time! While Joe has a 1% chance of climbing up a 595 foot tall building, he is doomed to fall from a taller structure... ...apparently even he was only the second storey man. He also walks very, very, slightly more quietly. (/maxmin) Before all the stuffing falls out of my strawman, most of these instances wouldn't with markedly different with the new version, but since base chances are are the most malleable thing in any skill, this can easily be fixed. To get to the point, I'd certainly prefer to start with 4 abilities I can actually use than 7 that practicing will get me killed. Speaking to that, is it possible that basic for Thief skills (if clearly not the minutiae) are obvious enough that there should be a base chance for "untrained" people, such as people without the skill or who've not yet picked it under the specialization model? Actually, that's likely raise the spectre of GURPS, so let's not go there... --- Regarding the results of a sessions playtesting, while some of the specializations leave me a bit puzzled (particularly Mugging, Distraction, Blending, and Detect Escape Route) but I like the ability to choose the branch of the shady path down which the character walks. I didn't mind that PC's were slightly different sorts of thieves, as my players opted to use the abilities they had in the appropriate circumstance and the passive effects, such as observing "Thiefy goin's on's", are more attributable to general experience and Rank than a deep understanding of the working of a mushroom configuration five-pin barrel lock. The fact that base chances for a nimble, highly ranked Ranked Thief are in the high squllions and turned out to have been slightly toned down from the original by the changes, I found alarming. But, unsurprisingly, the challenges soon scaled to cope with the calibre of the competition. Or, more correctly, the ambition of the adventurers... --- Regarding the "change for change's sake" objections; if the changes actually improves the skill (Which to my mind they do by expanding the options available to advanced thief, making Ranking a more interesting prospect than just increasing a range of base chances, and allowing "weekend" thieves to dabble in being sneaky without going the full Artful Dodger) and necessitates only minor changes to existing characters then "not changing for not changing's sake" seems like a less useful option. Remember, these are proposals and they need to be kicked around and tried out. IF Thief as a skill isn't very broken, it is very, very boring. It's a description of some highly technical endeavors represented in play in a totally abstract number-driven fashion with binary results, which is like a combat without a map, monsters, or violence. I feel that revitalization that has been lent to Troubadour, Courtier, and Spy can also to applied here, even if roleplaying doesn't lend as much to a jimmied lock or a snatched purse as it does to a diplomatic address or an epic poem. But it needs help. ben -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |