The problem is, in Mallory there were several "Best Knights", and we might conceivably want to have an idea of how they measure up against each other. And even of there is only one "Best Knight" then how do you decide between the "Great Knights" , "Renowned Knights" "Superb Knights", "Excellent Knights" etc etc
And one could conceivably be the "Best Knight in Britain" without being "the best fighter", or "the best swordsman" or "the best jouster"...
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, the problem is when you write
> "Best knight in all of Britain 10W3" and then a player manages to
> end up at 10W4.
Yes, but...
1) What if, (My Camelot Will Vary) I want my players to be able to
surpass Lancelot? In this situation if the only information I have
is "Lancelot's skill is always a Mastery above yours" then it is
somewhat less than helpful.
2) Elsewhere the suggestion was made that if the Pass/Fail cycle suggests my less than impressive players should succeed against a normally tough opponent, I would narrate circumstances that explain why he is at a disadvantage. Why doesn't the reverse apply here, and I just narrate the circumstances that elevate Lancelot back to a mastery or more above the players?
3) If you make Lancelot "Best Knight in Britain 10W3 (based on a benchmark of 15W)" then I can easily see that now my players are 10W4, Lancelot needs to be "Best Knight in Britain 5W5" to keep pace. This seems to be what you are doing anyway, so I don't really see what the prproblem with providing the information is...
Powered by hypermail