Re: small & slothful

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:38:30 -0800

> > It would depend on the context, of course, but if two characters were
> > fighting, I would indeed let someone defend with their tiny. It would
> > *not* make them easier to kill -- APs are relative advantage, and
> > being small and nimble is an advantage.
>
> If I understand what you're saying then there is no way to interpret an
> advantage in one case as a disadvantage in another? That seems, well,
> unreal?

I didn't say there was no way to, but in this case, I don't think it's appropriate.

After all, the purpose of combat is *not* to kill someone. It's to prevent them from acting against you.

> There are tons of noncombat examples as well, I think. Grabbing a
> particularly obtuse one, let's give a Sloth "Slow 4w" - he can use it
> to avoid being seen, reduces his susceptibility to poison, but clearly
> if he was to be shot at, because of having "Slow" as a trait (I think
> whether it's called a trait or a skill is functionally irrelevant) I
> certainly wouldn't let him dodge at the default 12 or whatever...

Or you could ask him to fail a Slow roll in order to do something that involves speed.

We had a character who had Thick (i.e. slow of wit). He was able to use it in a few situations; in others, he had to fail it to act with player intelligence. (Mostly it was to help describe the character.)

IMO we don't need lots of rules for "negative" abilities.

David Dunham     A Sharp     david_at_...
Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404     http://a-sharp.com

Efficiency is intelligent laziness.