Keith:
> It seems to me that if you cannot discuss hw-rules on a hw-rules
> discussion list where can you discuss hw-rules?
Quite. Pray god we don't need "open-hw-rules". (For actual discussions of the rules, as opposed to being told "it's not a game world description bug, it's a narrative feature" for any given topic?)
Nick:
> Hear, hear!
Hear, hear, hear.
Graham:
> Keith has a good point here. The main problem with the wealth discussion is
> that 400 (I'll believe Jeff - I ain't counting) messages in little has been
> said that wasn't in the first couple of dozen, and tempers are getting a
> little frayed.
I agree. But there are certain manners and means of attempting to truncate discussions of the rules that'll fray tempers just as fast.
> If we could re-focus on the question of how to cope with quest challenges
> for an ability you already have, or have something similar to, we might get
> on better. After all, pretty much everyone agrees the current 'double or
> nothing' rule is broken...
Indeed.
How do people feel about my suggested rule of thumb, that if your old ability is [X], and your newly-gained ability just happens _also_ to be exactly [X] (i.e. in some sense you really are "doubling" how good you are, in some at least hand-wavy game-world sense), your new ability should be [X+10]?
Powered by hypermail