So, we were wasting our time playing it, then? _If_ comments are being made based on out-of-date rules, or other misconceptions (and I don't doubt that this has occured to some extent), it'd be more helpful to point this out in the particular case, rather than writing off everying anyone has to say with blanket statements such as the above.
Pete Nash says, re: "floating multiskills":
> Ahh. I must have missed the initial plot point cost. This would make
> more sense. (Although I still wouldn't use it myself)
Big caveat: I haven't seen the rules for this at all, I'm reading between the lines (and hopefully remembering correctly, through the traditional Con sleep-loss, alcoholic haze, and financial emergencies) of what Robin _said_ about this.
Him that hath lots of status points, he shall be given more...
> Maybe because the PC's all had very good skills and
> almost never failed. Does this mean that a conflict involving high
> skilled characters would tend towards action point accumulation?
> (because they always succeed (won) or Succeed (lost) )
That's true, if both sides always makes their rolls, it becomes a "zero sum game". But I would be surpised if it consistently happened that a five-on-five fight were often whittled down to one-on-one -- I'd think one side would normally have won before that happened.
I did notice that the demo game characters _were_ pretty high skill. I don't know if this is typical -- it seems a little much, given that this is already _in addition to_ a whole level of mastery. If Joe Blow has "ordinary" skills at (say) 10/10, then someone like Broadus at Mastery 1, 5/15 is already about 15 "ability increments" (or whatever the correct term is) above him, right?
> There is also the situation of natual
> rolled 20's vs bumped Criticals (if this is not what you are already
> pointing out). I had to assume that these were automatic draws.
Well, they'd be "Big Success/Big Success" on the table, which is effectively a tie, yes. Why's that a problem, though? Only the Success/Success box is effectively subdivided into Winner and Loser (and Tie, of course).
> I thought that there was no limit on how many action points a player
> character could bid, even if this meant going massively negative.
PCs, and _certain_ NPCs can go negative, yes. I was suggesting we reserve judgement on whether the "massively" part is open-ended or not. (I'd hope not, personally. Maybe something like -(current or starting value), or -(some fixed "really bad outcome" level))?
It seems to me that if you're going to be dead at -50SP, you won't be much deader at -2000SP, so if you're inclined to make a stake that would result in either, the second is a bit of a free lunch. Of course, there's a fine fine between the "abusive" and the "heroic", so perhaps it's best to leave it up to the GM to decide where to draw it.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail