Re: Skill systems

Joshua Kronengold (JOKHC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)
Sat, 18 Jul 92 19:09:31 EDT

On Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:42:37 EDT you said:
>So everyone liked the levels on subskills? My old worker-output
>formula was that 1/3 of the effectiveness came from the parent skill,
>2/3 from the subskill. There is no difference between assisters
>or direct workers for the purposes of this calculation.
Which coincidentally is the same as my proposed breakdown (general is 1/2

>> You don't automatically lose the subskills if the parent gets worse.
>I thought this would be a disadvantage, a flaw in my skill dilution
>scheme. It's intersting that you see it as a good thing.
Since I'm saying that you should be able to learn the subskill without the
general, it seems natural.
>> Additionally, you should be able to try to use 0 level skills
>Why? I like the fact that < level 1 isn't usable. Should subskills
>come in at a level 1 so they can be usable, or come in at level 0, as
>spells do?
I'd say that learning, say, "build clipper ship[666]" at 0 with a shipbuilding
of 10 would be like having a blueprint for a clipper ship. So you would be
able to make a ship, since you have all the skills nessessary, but only one
third as well, since you haven't make many clippers. On the other hand, if you
were just taught the subskill, or had shipbuilding at 1, you wouldn't be able
to use the skill.
So by my system, level < 1 wouldn't be useable unless you had a decently
high helping skill, like in the above example.
Joshua Kronengold

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links