On Monday 12 December 2005 3:44 am, Jane Williams wrote:
> If you want to read and enjoy, go ahead. And if not, then not.
If I didn't have my beloved coming in for a handfasting, I probably would read. But, sadly, other duties call.
> > True. Sometimes it is easier to dial that all back.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that phrase?
That sometimes you have to just agree to go into the rules for rules sake headspace. (I often make up my own idioms. This is problematic. *grin*)
> I've heard this suggested as a limitation, and never been very convinced by
> it. Still, as long as I'm consistent, it probably doesn't matter.
True. Consistent (Or at least, consistently able to explain your reasoning as Narrator) should always get you through with your group.
It strikes me that HQ has lots of tools for tackling different contests, without any one being right all the time. Thus a lot comes down to social contract, communication, and consistency.
> > I think the way I would rule that is that I'd augment that
> > particular bid with
> > the LOWEST "Devotee of Humakt" rating on the PC's side.
> > Because THAT's the person Vur would trust least.
>
> Interesting idea, I may pick upon that.
Weak link in the chain and all that. (Also, what if Vur decides, depending on how the debate is going, that he'll talk only in front of "some" of the band?)
> That's the conclusion I was coming to. Though maybe with Greek Chorus as AP
> bank and clapometer. He'll have more APs, PCs will have better TN.
Yeah. I think that's a good solution. He gets many more APs, but the PCs have a better TN. He's super stubborn, and they have to wear him down with strong arguments.
LC
Powered by hypermail