> It might yet arrive. YahooGroups are notable for occasionally having
> tremendous latency (in the days).
No, I suspect my email. It's been very sketchy of late.
> If you don't like the wealth idea as an abstract, then I suggest that
> players use their wealth rating to do contests to purchase superior arms and
> armor. That is, a success gives you an excuse to then spend a HP to cement
> some better equipment. Again, I'm not saying that better equipment shouldn't
> be available. Just that it should only be available through play, and
> subject to the normal rules for cementing. So, if I want a 5W sword (worth a
> +3 augment), then I have to roll my wealth against the 5W (modified by
> haggling abilities, etc, etc). Failure can mean, BTW, that you get the
> thing, but the "injury" that occurs goes to your wealth rating, representing
> a current cash shortage.
That's a cute way to do it.
> Well, mechanically not much. But two weeks ago, I had a player asking me,
> "So, I have all these interpersonal abilities - can I have some equipment to
> augment it? You know, a +3 necklace to make me look good?" That sort of
> thing. Well, he was in a position where this would be similar to a warrior
> getting "standard" equipment. So shouldn't he get a +3 item? And another to
> represent armor? And another to represent a shield? I mean, if a warrior can
> automatically recieve +7 to his main abilities, why not a merchant?
>
> Can you see the slippery slope?
All too well. All too well.
Where does it end? I can set artificial
> limits on the number of items, but then why not go with the zero concept
> which says that a PC has whatever equipment they need, but it doesn't have
> to be enumerated. I don't have to make the judgement call that the game
> otherwise requires me to make using the equipment rules - namely how much
> free equipment each character has available. Which is good because every
> time I gave something like that out, I felt the eyes of the other players
> who were paying for cementing charms and such boring holes into me. Oh, they
> probably didn't really mind, but there's just this dichotomy between how the
> normal equipment rule works, and how much it costs to buy everything else.
> With my new method, everything costs the same.
I have to admit, that's a pretty solid argument for leaning over this way. Assume the skill means standard equipment/situation, and improv modify out from there. If someone REALLY wants a piece of equipment that helps them above and beyond, they pay HP for it.
> This argues in my favor. I really don't want to add a claw bonus to the
> Clawing Ability of a bear. Just as I don't want to add a "fists" bonus to a
> boxer.
I'd been leaning that way myself.
> No changes. That is, everything augments just as they did previously. If a
> ritual requires standard equipment, then no bonus. If you have superior
> equipment, or other bonus situation presents itself, then, of course, you
> get a bonus.
It's a pretty compelling argument.
LC
Powered by hypermail