> However your basic point is a sound one: Never add two abilities,
> always augment one with another.
Well, being as unwild about the augment rules as I am, I wouldn't quite say that, as they give flakey results in places too. (But still closer than directly adding...)
> Taking this way back up the thread to quest challenges, I think the
> obvious solution is that if you are challenging for an ability you
> already have, you still get a new ability.
>
> Say you have close combat 6W2, and in a quest challenge you defeat a
> troll death-lord, wagering your close combat against his close combat
> 10W2. Rather than adding the two abilities (giving you CC 16W4,
> clearly broken), or adding one fifth (giving a more reasonable 16W2),
> I think you should gain "death lord combat". You would also add the
> death lord's close combat combetencies (mace, club, etc) to your own,
> should you not already have them.
Hrm. I sense the "broad abilities" ruck and maul all over again... But it'd be one solution, just one that I think would cause more playerly pouting, essentially unnecessarily.
> However, I don't really see what is wrong with the current HW
> approach of looking at multiple attackers/defenders, and adding up
> AP? I thought that was one of the mechanisms that bugged people quite
> little?
APs are nicely additive, that works fine. It's adding TNs that's tricky. What's the correct "collective rating" for ten 14 guys? 14/140 undervalues them a little. What's the correct collective rating for those chaps, plus their 10W3 leader? 10W3/210 overvalues them significantly...
> > Wealth is an exception, because you actually *need* a simulationist
> rule for
> > it, and some method of translating the TN into accountancy.
>
> *need*???? A lot of people seem to be playing the game without such
> a think without great difficulty. Perhaps "....because if you feel
> you *need* a simulationist rule for it....." would be a better
> phrasing?
Personally I think it's less a matter of giving a a simulationist rule for it -- if you want to go that way, simply ditch wealth ratings entirely. It's rather a matter of: _understanding_ what the wealth ratings mean in game world terms a little more clearly; and secondly, of providing mechanical support for when something _major_ happens to your wealth. (Like you have wealth 10W, someone gifts you 2W "worth" of cattle. Supposing you choose to cement this, how much should it be "worth"?)
Powered by hypermail