Roderick wrote:
> > 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. Description-wise, in combat you could put the AP loss
> down to fatigue, chopped-up armor, nicked and bent weapons, sweat dripping
> into the eyes, etc. In debate put it down to frustration at not getting your
> point across, frustration at your opponenen't s thick-headedness, devolving
> into ad hominem attacks, flames, temper (just look at any list discussion
> for more examples of what happens when two otherwise rational people start
> talking past each other...).
The problem (as I'm sure you know) is that two masters at 1w2 would wear each other out, but if one of them were at only 20w, one of them would end up unscathed (since in the former case, both would fail most of the time, while in the latter, both would succeed most of the time).
The problem is really the quantum jump of a mastery.
Benedict:
> Jeff pointed out (in a discussion of the augmentation rules) that
> having many 'no effect' results is un dramatic. Its better for
> something to happen one way or another, otherwise it could degenerate
> into 'I attack'/'I parry' ad neuseum.
I'm tempted by many tied Criticals to have both participants lose AP, just to keep things more dramatic (and end the contest sooner)... (It is after all Narrator's Choice.)
-- David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...> Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail