On 4/9/06, Ben B. Bainton <ben@...> wrote:
Rather than merely adding my voice in chorusing agreement to yours, I will quote from Chad Underkoffler's freely available PDQ core rules, which I serendipitously downloaded today, and which has given me more than a few things to think about.
"Qualities represent a broad skill or field of knowledge; if a particular Quality is relevant at all to an action or topic, the character may apply that Quality when attempting that action or understanding that topic. This is called the penumbra (or "shadow") of the Quality. Therefore, a player shouldn't choose Qualities that are too narrow or its penumbra will cast too narrow a shadow; too broad, and identifying the sorts of things that should fall under the penumbra becomes pointless. The parameters for what's "too broad" or "too narrow" are up to the individual GM.
"For example, consider a character who has the Quality of "Teacher." For some PDQ games, that will be perfectly fine; for others, too broad. The GM might ask the player to refine the Quality, to give a better idea of the sorts of things that will fall under the Teacher Quality's penumbra. So: "Teacher" could become "College History Prof," "High School Chemistry Teacher," or "Grade School Teacher." While all would cover the basic concept of education, each individual choice will bring different skills under the Quality penumbra – not just their fields of interest, but also supplementary knowledge: the College History Prof would have more experience with (academic) politics, the High School Chemistry Teacher would know more about adolescent fads, and the Grade School Teacher would be better at dealing with kids on a sugar high."
To summarize: Penumbral thickness is up to you, and it probably will work out the same no matter what you do. This is officially now, for me, word one on Traits.
Anyway, all I would say in addition to that is to pay attention to how one person with one broad difficulty and one person with several distinct ones interact system wise. And then tell us all about it.
Hey, you stuck to your guns and eventually got me to realize you were right. You're living the internet dream! Take a victory lap and spike the ball in the endzone!
- Nick
LoL.
And as for traits and weaknesses, I just like to keep things
flexible... One 'distiction', as you put it, might be fine for one
character, but a couple of more specific flaws might suit another
better, and I want to keep that option open. I like systems that are
very flexible and suited for many different types of characters, and
Wushu certainly has that potential.
Rather than merely adding my voice in chorusing agreement to yours, I will quote from Chad Underkoffler's freely available PDQ core rules, which I serendipitously downloaded today, and which has given me more than a few things to think about.
"Qualities represent a broad skill or field of knowledge; if a particular Quality is relevant at all to an action or topic, the character may apply that Quality when attempting that action or understanding that topic. This is called the penumbra (or "shadow") of the Quality. Therefore, a player shouldn't choose Qualities that are too narrow or its penumbra will cast too narrow a shadow; too broad, and identifying the sorts of things that should fall under the penumbra becomes pointless. The parameters for what's "too broad" or "too narrow" are up to the individual GM.
"For example, consider a character who has the Quality of "Teacher." For some PDQ games, that will be perfectly fine; for others, too broad. The GM might ask the player to refine the Quality, to give a better idea of the sorts of things that will fall under the Teacher Quality's penumbra. So: "Teacher" could become "College History Prof," "High School Chemistry Teacher," or "Grade School Teacher." While all would cover the basic concept of education, each individual choice will bring different skills under the Quality penumbra – not just their fields of interest, but also supplementary knowledge: the College History Prof would have more experience with (academic) politics, the High School Chemistry Teacher would know more about adolescent fads, and the Grade School Teacher would be better at dealing with kids on a sugar high."
Anyway, all I would say in addition to that is to pay attention to how one person with one broad difficulty and one person with several distinct ones interact system wise. And then tell us all about it.
But I'm just repeating myself, so I'll shut up.
Hey, you stuck to your guns and eventually got me to realize you were right. You're living the internet dream! Take a victory lap and spike the ball in the endzone!
- Nick
Offline 
Send Email