> > I agree in general that 'doubling' is in some sense about X+10, but I
> > suspect this seems mean for quest challenges. After all, if you've just
> > risked a W3 ability, and have the choice of a new W3 ability or a +10,
> > which seems the better investment?
>
>True, but the case where you've "only" risk a 12 point ability is
>very different. Should _that_ be worth a +12?
>
>
> > My own, off the cuff, solution is to allow doubling, but to cap the
> > increase somewhere around the mastery level (ie. X+20).
>
>Would it work better for you if doubling "worked out at" +W, and
>lesser "adds" something proportionately less, say? (That way you'd
>have some incentive to stake something other than 20 point abilities
>every time...)
Given the little we've seen of heroquests so far, I believe the incentive to use a higher ability rating than 12 or 20 is the opposition will be wagering something more like W3...
Although I suppose this opens a new can of worms. If you have a low score, but your supporters have boosted it to the required levels, do you still get the huge benefits? In other words, if I have a score of 12 (as Alex mentions) and community support boosts it to W3 for the quest challenge, can I gain a W3 ability? Presumably yes, but that does allow for some very rapid gaining of power...
In short, the quest challenge rules do seem a mess to me. I, personally, like the all or nothing nature - Wulf's idea of a -10 on the risked ability seems to me to be missing the point. But I can see some very easy ways to abuse them to gain enormous powers...
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail