>I think that change of wording would remove 90% of the confusion
>about this topic: the boost to the PC's chance of success, if it
>exists, is to do with the story they are in, not anything intrinsic
>to the people they are dealing with.
>
>This has, for me, several big advantages:
>
>- - you don't distort an individual scene by making some
> people arbitrarily a lot tougher than others.
>
>- - if you change your mind about the significance of a character,
> you don't have to rewrite their stats.
>
>- - just because you easily fast-talked your way past the guard
> in scene 1, doesn't mean he's irrelevant in the closing
> big fught.
>
>- - if you have a situation where you want the PC's to lose, you
> just turn it the other way round and bump up the bad
> guys results.
>
>I'm sure most people would run things like that anyway, but there's
>no harm I can see in having the rules work that way too.
>
>- --
>Richard Melvin
>No doubt someone will read the above, sadly shake their head, and
>gently point out to me that I'm just not evolved enough to understand
>the new paridigm. And they may be right
No Richard, that is exactly the new paradigm and in the rules. The difficulty is communicating it in this lousy (electronic) medium. Fortunately, a rulebook is a good medium for explaining rules.
Eric Rowe
Powered by hypermail