Re: Digest Number 102

From: t.s.baguley_at_...
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:32:53 +0100

>> > Please, please answer my above questions, or pass them on to somebody who
>> > will! Some of my players are pain-in-the-ass rules lawyers, and I'm sure
>> > they'll exploit the above rule quite a bit (if I can't do anything about
>> it).
>>
>> How can they "exploit" it? Not bother to pass the mastery barrier?
>
>It could certainly lead to some mildly silly cases: one might
>contrive to incur a 'penalty' that would actually _improve_ one's
>net chances of success. Thus one gets into the situation where
>the rules introduce a 'perverse incentive', and one ends up
>'policing' it on the basis of world coherence (rather than the
>rules supporting same, which is kinda what they're there for).

I'm not sure the net chance of success is improved by a penalty (is there a counterexample? Haven't got time to work up spreadsheet). On two successes the low roll wins. So the 17 player succeeds on rolls of 2-17, the 2w player succeeds on 3-19. The 17 players gets more 1x forfeits but fewer 2x and 3x (hasn't someone shown this). (Also, you'd need to know the opponent's target number to know if it is worth taking a penalty).

>(Just like the Community Participation rules. Isn't odd that the
>way to get the best bonus for a clan-supported ritual is to shove
>your closest allies and family down a well?)
>
>Cheers,
>Alex.

I'm not sure about this, but consider ...

(1) You are in a band. The audience contains aquaintances (150), family and friends (20) and others. Your family applaud wildly in between songs. The rest clap politely.

(1) You are in a band. The audience contains aquaintances (150), family and friends (20) and others. Everyone responds enthusiastically.

(3) You are in a band. The audience contains only family and friends (20) and others. Your family applaud wildly in between songs.

Which is more supporting? Hero wars suggests maybe 3>2>1.

Thom