> We tried this and we found it made the game slower as we're all stupid
> on our number facts in the middle of combat. We've been using 'high
> die wins' lately instead, just to be odd. (Those Pendragon habits die
> hard)
Don't I just know it... Actually my main reason for not using this myself is not that it completely changes the probabilities, for the reasons Mitch mentions, but that it has the "spurious precision for lazy GMs" syndrome. In HW, and other "low is good, lowest is better" games I can ask the player to make a roll, and not bother to work out exact sit-mods unless it turns out to be a "marginal" case where it really matters: was that 3 a success, or a crit? In Pendragon, and systems that work on the basis of "high is good, but oh no, that's _too_ high!", you need to be a bit more disciplined in deciding them up front (at least to one's own satisfaction -- one can of course leave the players to twist in the wind...), lest one end up turning a crit into a mere success by giving them a bonus, and other silliness.
(A compromise is to keep the "1's a crit, but o/w higher and below TN is good" -- not sure if that would be less confusing, or more so, being one permutation I haven't tried...)
> > Several people mentioned HW2 animism rules being significantly
> > different, does anyone have any sneak preview details available to
> > avoid our fledgling campaign getting Gregged so soon?!
>
> I think GTA members have access to some of that info. Its not a
> matter of rules changes but a level of details -- more stuff to get
> rather than less or different rules.
Oh yeah, there's some stuff in the Initiate area. Jeff's recollection is correct, what's there does not contradict the HW1 stuff as such (which isn't to say that HW2 as such might not...).
Powered by hypermail