Re: cementing; ease of use

From: Tim Ellis <tim_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:41:07 -0000

I would have thought this was self evident! AFAIK this is what the HW rules do say, however, and even if they don't do so explicitly, it's how I interpret them. I thought that was what you were asking...

> I am
> suggesting that the rules for cementing items should be different in
> some way. For example, that the HP cost of cementing an item should
> depend, in some way, on the power of the item. I suggest that better
> cementing rules could allow cementing of powerful items without
> destroying game balance.

But you still haven't explained why you think having to spend a HP to keep a powerful item is going to destroy game balance. In what way does "A Carl cements Excalibur for 1HP" destroy game balance in a way that "A Carl gets to use Excalibur" doesn't (or even "A Carl gets to cement Excalibur for 5HP"). The "Game Balance Issue" is nothing to do with the cementing, it's to do with the power of items you let your players get their hands on, and that is a "universal" RPG issue not a HW one...

> When we
> started playing (the standard 5W/1W/17/13), buying a new ability at
> 12 seemed OK. But as our characters have grown more powerful (some
> over 1W2 now), an ability of 12 seems less attractive. The problem
> is, in a higher power game you just can't USE the ability. Taking an
> unrelated action for an uncertain shot at a +1 augment is rarely
> worthwhile. Why use an ability rating of 12 when you could improvise
> from one of your better abilities and have a rating of about 1W?
>

This is why I suggested that a GM may choose to allow the default to be higher in a higher-powered game. Although the "standard" game uses 5w/1w/17/13 - the rules do allow higher or lower powered games (though without giving ratings, IIRC) - If you were running a game where characters started at 17/13/10/8, for example, I doubt you would want "new" abilities to start at 12, so likewise if you want a game where the starting levels are 5w2/1w2/17w/13w you would need to "up" the starting score for the reasons you outline above.

> Well, is the GM acting randomly while doing so, or following their
> judgement? If randomly, this is silly.

Yes, it would be

> If following their judgement I
> suggest that they are at least approximating some rule (or rules).
> That is, they are (approximately) implementing some unwritten house
> rules.

That's why I said "A GM may choose to..." or words to that effect

> Why not make those rules explicit? Then other GMs can follow
> them to, everyone can be assured that decisions are fair and
> consistent, and we can examine the rules for flaws and potential
> improvements.

I'm not sure that rules are assured to be fair just because they are explicit (they aren't even guaranteed to be consistent come to that) -  and they only need to be consistent within your own game (so everyone = all your players not all HW players) but in essence, yes, discussion of House Rules is generally good, providing you don't expect everyone to think they are perfect ;)

>
> Arguing that the rules are OK because you can choose to discard the
> rules and follow different rules is bizarre.

Well you can always choose to discard any rules and implement new ones of your own. That doesn't necessarily make the original rules flawed. I'd rather argue that the original rules are OK because you don't need to discard them and follow different rules.

(You might even choose to argue that your starting character might pick up a minor item that turns out to have some minor power, thus starting at a 12, whereas a hero like Argrath should always be picking up "famous" items that come with a "pre-assigned" rating...)

Powered by hypermail