Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Complementary Skills
Date: Thu Mar 14 05:05:01 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>Which is, IMHO, nicely modelled by halving the number of successes rolled.
>Which
>means that if you've spent as much time reading about a subject as someone
>else
>has spent actually doing it, you'll only be half as good at it.

Well, not exactly half is it? If you roll three successes on your
complementary skill that counts as one "real success". ;-)

I have to thank everyone who's given me house rules...etc, you've been a
great help.

Just to let you know, we were planning to halve the dice but another way
suggested itself, so I'll post it, my own contribution to the thread I
started.

Add the rating of the complementary skill directly to the highest dice roll.
(Logic, it represents the huge help that knowing a little bit of psychology
(eg people don't like to look upwards) and various other things represents.
look at it this way, a person who has heard vaguely about this hiding idea
(ie know skill 1 no active skill) will default, but with a reduced penalty
because he's heard of the idea, a world renowned expert on the subject of
"finding places to hide" (know skill @ 8) will probably be able to out-hide
someone with a little practical experience (active@*) and may even be able
to outhide the olympic hide and seek champion (assuming the olympic champion
didn't have any know skill himself which is really cool because it
represents the adaptability that a know skill gives, the olympic champion
may be able to hide like anything in the standardized olympic arena but set
him loose in unfamiliar territory and he has difficulty.) We've only used it
once but it seems to work...


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.