> > And my point is, how is the narrator best to be assisted in making
> > the determination as to _what_ [in game-world terms], reasonably, could
increase your
> > wealth [in rules terms]. If you wealth is 10W3, 4 cows is not a
"narratively
> > significant amount". If it's 5, it certainly is (and then some).
> >
> > Even if you're going to rule out the "cementing" approach entirely
> > (which personally I'm reluctant to do, for the aforementioned types
> > of "Champions syndrome" reason (yes, the 20 year old cutting edge
> > rule...)), then having some sort of rough and ready game world
> > correspondance is useful just for making the above call.
> ...
>
> I'm with you, but against you ;-).
>From the following, I'd say I was almost entirely with you, since I
have mixed feelings about cementing, as it stands. (Hence the hedging.)
> Wealth is not the only benefit you can cement. I think the non-Wealth
> cementing rules, as they stand, are broken, for the simple reason
> that 1 HP can cement anything ('Hey, Stormbringer, cool!', deducts 1
> HP, adds Magic Sword 10W5 to character sheet). Anyone who increases
> abilities the steady way (+1 for 1 HP) is short changed in
> comparison. I note that the Wealth cementing rule tries to take into
> account (in what I hope we can all agree is a broken manner) the size
> of benefit you are trying to cement. If one argues that this is a
> good thing (as I do), one must concede that an analogous rule for
> cementing non Wealth benefits is necessary.
>
> Now, one way around this area of brokeness is to discard the rules
> for cementing benefits (Wealth and non Wealth). This is effectively
> what we've done in our games. You think this is a Bad Thing, and I'm
> not so sure you're wrong.
I think there has to be some sort of "middle path". I may want to introduce a Magic Sword 10W5 as a maguffin (I doubt it, actually, but hey, it's just an example!) in my story, and it's a nuisance for the "rules question" about cementing to possibly pop up. I don't want to give it to 'em for 1HP, fairly obviously. Equally it seems far too "Championseque" to say "1HP? That'll get you Magic Sword 12, thank you."
Off the top of my head I'd say what I'd do in such circumstances is either: let them "cement" it (if it seemed at all narratively app. for them to be doing that at all, that is) for some number of HPs I plucked out of my head; or to let them "semi-cement" it for 1HP (they can write it down "for now", but their relationship to it may not be as secure as they'd like to think).
> QUESTIONS
> So, do people think the existing rules for increasing abilities are
> too slow? And if so, how do people think they can be made faster
> without destroying game balance?
I think it's not so much a matter of too fast or too slow: throw them extra HPs, if you just want to speed things up. (Caveat: I've found that this can read to things getting slightly bump-happy. IMCG, I've been playing a "generic" bump-up costs 3HP (discount schemes available!); 1HP spent _before_ a roll will get you (at least) a +10, though.)
Rather the key question is, how much input do we want the narrative to have into character progression, vs. how much "character design sub-game"? At one extreme, we have RQ, where all advancement is driven by in-game events (and a large slice of luck); at the other, we have Champions and its ilk, where it's as near as dammit _entirely_ at the "have some points and go spend them". My own preference is somewhere in the middle, and somewhere in the middle is where HW seems to intend being, but finding that middle ground can be tricky at times.
Powered by hypermail