Eric Rowe, in divers posts:
> What if you could go to the hero plane, steal a spirit, and suddenly
> jump 20 points in a skill? Kinda gets rid of the small-grained problem.
This is neither here nor there. I'm not saying a fine granularity would cause 'problems' (like slow advancement, or whatever, that's easily compensated for), just that there's no point in having a game scale that's more fine-grained than makes sense for player intuition, or which subverts the apparent meaning of game terms such as Mastery. (Which, happily it transpires HW is _not_ guilty of.)
> Frankly, the list already looks much like your list.
I was responding to _Doyle's_ list, not to The List, which I haven't been made privy to. Therefore mine ought not to be taken as any sort of criticism of the latter.
> Alex's problems come from trying to match HW to RQ.
I believe not. I do not do so, am not tempted to do so, and largely (if not overwhelmingly) approve of the ways in which HW does _not_ match up RQ.
> In Pavis, you could
> be a Rule Lord as a starting player because they needed bodies.
Good example, though very much the exception in the Bad Old Days.
> Your clan priest can have one mastery, or four, it is a social position.
These propositions I'm quite happy with. Nay, delighted. I for one am all in favour of disposing of the RQisms of Stats for Jobs, but it nevertheless makes sense to talk about typical, or normal minimal 'stats' for a social or religious position, which has been the whole point of the discussion, whether made explicitly or not. If the Received Game Scale Wisdom is such that a 2W godi can be our clan priest, albeit a rather piss-poor one (hey, maybe we just have a piss-poor clan), then I think all is well in the garden, and said game scale isn't iffy, overly-fined grained, nor yet unintuitive, as I'd been given reason to have apprehensions about.
Greg was explicit on this latter point at Tentacles, btw, before we blame him for everything, and I think it's been mooted (and widely approved of) a fair bit before now. But I think that Mastery = expected minimum to be a clan priest, or 'name level' of some obscure cult makes a lot of intuitive sense.
> Alex often equates priest=WWW. That is just flat out wrong and I hope
> he eventually stops.
Au contraire, _this_ statement is 'just flat out wrong'. It would be more (considerably) more accurate to say that I posted one message in which I disagreed with the wisdom of such an equation, as embodied in an (accurate) quote of Greg to this effect. (And the rest was history...)
> I'd say you heard it right, but Greg probably mis-spoke it. The scale
> you guys like so much is exactly like the scale I've seen in the
> latest version of Greg's rules before the convention.
Then all is cool. Not that all wasn't really pretty cool before any of this storm-in-a-teacup. Here's to some Doldrums for a short while.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail