> > I agree with your interpretation, but I seem to be in the minority
> > here. Their argument seems to be from aesthetics -- it doesn't feel
> > right that Oskul does worse if Urgrain fumbles, since he'd rolled the
> > same failure either way. (I see Russell makes much the same argument.)
>
> Frankly I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Mastery rule and just keeping the
> table "clean". Let two evenly matched opponents slowly wear each other down
> Lancelot-Gawain style.
Argh... This would be Hideous. It's not even much like the Pendragon situation where abilities > 20 are supposed to be earth-shattering and game-changing: a battle between two 1W punters should not be utterly different in character from 20 vs 20 punters (or indeed a 20 vs a 1W).
> (just look at any list discussion for more examples of what happens
> when two otherwise rational people start talking past each other...).
What are you talking about? ;-)
If one wants an "uncluttered" table, I'd suggest the following. Delete the mastery special case, and treat lose/lose as a "tied" mutual defeat, as with the mere Unmasterful.
Instead, alter the _cancelling_ rule: Stop cancelling if it would reduce _both_ participants below 10W. e.g., 2W vs 2W: no cancelling. 2W3 vs. 14W3, cancel to 2 vs 14. 2W2 vs 9W2: cancel to _2W_ vs _9W_.
(The 10W is a somewhat arbitrary breakpoint, but the idea is to avoid both "everyone keeps losing" and "everyone keeps criticalling" being the most common result, each of which is Icky.)
Powered by hypermail