Re: Cement overshoes.

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:37:05 +0100


Alex Ferguson wrote:
...
> 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).
...

Now, I think we can agree that plucking a random figure for cementing is not good enough, there ought to be a systematic rule for determining it (dare I say a mathematically coherent one?). Anyone who follows their 'judgement' is at least approximating some kind of rule, so considering possible rules is useful even for those who would want to wing it in practice.

To make the discussion more realistic, let us abandon the 10W5 Stormbringer, and instead consider the 10W2 Durulz Bane, famed sword of the Sambari Tribe (you can tell it belongs to a tribe, cuz' its got a 10W2 rating). Now this is an item that you a) might want to introduce as a McGuffin and b) might not mind characters having (if they are about the 10W2 power level).

So, how many HP should it cost to cement this benefit?

RULE A:


Cement for 1 HP.

GOOD if the character cementing it is Close Combat 17W2 and Combat Affinity 10W2 (its no better, ruleswise, than buying a new Combat feat for 1 HP).

BAD if the character cementing it is Close Combat 5W.

RULE B:


1 HP to buy Durulz Bane 12, then buy up at +1 / 1 HP each session, like any other ability.

OK if the character cementing it is Close Combat 13

OKish if the character cementing it is Close Combat 5W. The character would have to act so it was 'related to session' for 38 further session (struth!) to actually have Durulz Bane 10W2.

BAD for a character with Close Combat 17W2 and Combat Affinity 10W2. Why spend those 39 HPs on Durulz Bane when the character could instead buy 39 Combat Feats (!) (also at 10W2) or increase their Combat Affinity to 3W3.

Introducing Durulz Bane to the game using these rules actually slows character improvement, by introducing an additional sink into which the character pours HPs.

RULE C:



Spend HP equal to 1/10 its rating to cement it. Durulz Bane 10W2 costs 5 HP.

OK if the character cementing it is Close Combat 10W2.

BAD if the character cementing it is Close Combat 17W2 with a Combat Affinity of 10W2 (better to buy 5 feats or 2 feats and +1 affinity).

GOOD if the character is about Close Combat 1W2. After all, it would cost 10 HP to increase their Combat to 10W2 anyway. I guess this is the kind of difference a Narrator would want cementing to make: increase the speed of advancement, but not greatly so.

BAD if the character cementing it is Close Combat 5W. Having 5 HP to spend is not a big deal in our game, where players keep a stash for heroquests and other tough situations.

So, it seems that any good cementing rule must take into account the relative ability rating of the thing cemented and the ability rating of the character cementing it. I suppose that could be expressed mathematically (you know, using something complicated like arithmetic, Lord preserve us) or with a table.

Is it looking familiar yet?

Powered by hypermail