Of course, finding out what the intent is is important. However, I thought when Antonio first posted this that he said this WAS a rewrite, which to my mind sounded like he had already tried to discuss the page 20 rule and ask the player to respect the social contract he intends and that the player chose to flout it. (I can be completely wrong about that.)
Personally, as I said, I think a lot of it is redundant, and I'd fold some of it into keywords (assuming you can't get the player to respect the "no listing" rule.). Other than that, I'd go with the simple case that even giving him all this doesn't make him super powerful since everything starts at 13. As has been mentioned in the past, he has few social contacts of any depth in this, and HQ is a hard system to break in terms of one player being "all-powerful" since you can always find things to challenge them on.
LC
On December 15, 2006 01:55 pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
> other person on this list.
>
> Further I know the player in question, and I think that people are
> assigning some motives to the player that I don't think he has. In play
> he's actually a very story-driven player. I think that his narrative is
> simply pushing the boundaries, and I'm guessing that he doesn't know about
> the particular rule in question from page 20.
>
> Put another way, if presented with the same "rules" for creating a
> character (sans the text on p. 20), I'd probably do pretty much the same
> thing. I'm a "min-maxer" too, and I think anyone who's not is crazy. If a
> system says you can do something, you should. That's not abuse. If the
> system doesn't work when min-maxed, then it's a crap system. That's an
> assumption of Von Neumann's 600 page Min-max Theorem, which is the
> foundation of the mathematical field of Game Theory. Somehow RPGs have
> gotten along for a long time with the notion that if the rules are broken,
> that you should just play as though they aren't, compensating for the
> system's inadequacies.
>
> HQ isn't broken as written (it's actually rather sound). I think with the
> proper rules in hand the player in question will do just fine. Or perhaps
> he, like myself, would be more comfortable with the list method, as it has
> objective limits (though then you run into the problem of comparing between
> people who have used both methods, which they have in this case...).
>
> Anyhow, the worst thing to do, in my opinion, is to "punish" a player for
> their enthusiasm by twisting the intent of the character. That's not to say
> that the player in question might not enjoy some sort of Krjalk taint or
> something; be careful what you wish for, lest you get it. Lots of players
> are happy to be "saddled" with such a "problem" as an excuse to have their
> character behave in all manner of bad ways.
>
> Either way this idea always backfires. Two wrongs, you know.
>
> Mike
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
> friends module.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://sp
>aces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
Powered by hypermail