>> 2) I don't like the idea of players being induced to use a coup de >> grace "to be certain" of eliminating their Narrator's main villains. >> It seems counterintuitive and counterproductive.
> And I don't advocate it, and I don't think I *did* advocate it.
No, but Tim did, in the post I was responding to:
: The majority of the PC's opposition won't be taking Final Actions
: for the most part (just like the majority won't have Hero Points).
: The ones that do are likely to be the main villains that the PC's
: will watch like a hawk (or coup de grace to be certain!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> A combination of sloppy writing and sloppy reading may have been at
fault.
The sloppy reading is yours, agreed, but whose is the sloppy writing? :-)
> I assume that you (Nick) have played with your group long enough
> that you all know "the basics" of your group's methods and so have
> a higher expectation of "what a hero shouldn't worry about".
The latter more than the former. I have my own personal opinions (derived from experience and prejudice) about things that are not worth spending much or any time on, and charmingly share these, in character and out. It's not that we have played together so long that our party can always be assumed to operate in perfect harmony like a well-oiled machine, more that we prefer our heroic deeds to take place in a general atmosphere of haphazard bungling and makeshift expedients. But then, we trust our Narrator.
> "If only the heroes had taken the elementary precaution of searching
> the prisoners and removing weapons, their Best Friend would still be
> alive today".
Also true. If you hadn't introduced the idea of a precautionary bullet in every skull, I doubt we'd be having this (IMO entertaining) digression.
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail