From:	dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject:	Alternate Skill System
Date:	Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:35:19 -0600

Tzeentch wrote:
>From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
> > No. But, a character would only need to know Motorcyle 1 to be able to
>get
> > from point A to point B without to much difficulty. A character would
>have
> > to know Pilot Space Shuttle at 4 or more to get a space shuttle into
> > orbit. As Mongoose pointed out, SR's skill system reflects difficulty on
> > the use end.
>
>Perhaps. I agree that as far as I can make out that is actually correct. But
>that's a limited subset of skills being used to support the argument. It
>seems to pan out though.

Also, consider that the time and resources needed to increase a "hard"
skill are far more than are needed to increase an "easy" skill.

> > >In SR3 the cost is only based on:
> > >1) The skills Rating compared to the linked Attribute Rating.
> > >2) If its an Active or Knowledge Skill
> > >3) If it is a base skill or specialization
> >
> > Or concentration.
>
>Not in SR3, concentrations do not exist.

Oh yeah. Sorry bout that. I still haven't gotten all of SR2 out of my
brain yet :)

>SR3s advancement systems works fine, I think a bit more depth would be
>interesting for those who want it. I really don't see it adding much to
>chargen complexity any more then adding new Edges and Flaws would.

Granted. I don't suppose it would be to hard to go through the skills and
assign a "difficulty" modifier with regards to skill improvement. I
personally would rather keep the rules as is and make sure that a character
spends appropriate resources and time towards increasing a skill.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."