It could, sure -- though I didn't particularly read the example like that.
> The other difference is that the background bonus is known in advance,
> while the result of bolstering depends on a contest that has yet to be
> rolled (and could conceivably turn out to be a penalty). If a good
> background bonus comes up, then cementing it is likely to be easier
> than bolstering to the same degree.
I think the implication is that if it's a penalty, it's the PC that's eating that anyway. But a humungously good background result isn't something I'm holding my breath waiting for, as the ratings are (and are always going to be) relatively close to 'even'. Rather, what I'm wondering is, if cementing is supposed to be a session's play (and bolstering possibly even moreso), isn't there a huge disincentive to even bothering? The point, surely, is to get the PCs more involved in the management of their community, not make it seem like a chore.
Powered by hypermail