I obviously say yes, as it was *extremely* fun and cool. I don't think it breaks the game too much, and you were running the risk of losing the ability that you'd wagered. It's not like you were trying to pull a fast one with the rules. Yes, we were playing a *little* fast and loose, but the balance of risk was still the same.
Certainly, given the circumstances in game, with lots of sacrifice, even more ritual and gates to Havan Vor being opened (not to mention the Maran Gor earthquakes and the trickster trying to "steal death"), there was so much magic flying around that if there HADN'T been a connection to the Other Side estab lished, I'd be surprised... So, suitable grounds to count this as a heroquest for me.
But you know what I'm like for ignoring/misinterpreting the rules... :)
> > The rules state that no-one can be involuntarily drawn into a quest
> > challenge and it is arguable that I did just that.
> Surely, anyone who decides to oppose you during a HQ is not
> 'involuntary'. As you say, they can always choose to back down if
> they don't want a quest challenge.
Quite right, IMO. She could quite easily have backed down and stopped sacrificing people, etc. :)
> > How reasonable is it to risk a feat but add
> > to an affinity?
> Not reasonable, I'd say. I think you would have to wager a feat
> against a feat or an affinity against an affinity.
I'd probably rule that you'd have to wager the whole affinity, as that's the
bit with the number next to it. (And, yes, I know Gloranthans don't know the
A single feat is a rather trivial thing to lose. Though if someone was to lose a feat in such a way, I'd make damn sure as a narrator that they could *never* buy a feat that duplicated (or even really came very close to) the one that had been lost.
Powered by hypermail