Graham, me:
> >I'm suggesting a sort of "fuzzy cap", and/or, "fuzzy consequences"
> >for going beyond a certain point "incorrectly". i.e., either "you're
> >trying to become a god (or god-like), you gotta do it right", or
> >"well, you've become a god now, this is what it's like...". i.e.
> >relating someone's ability levels to their place in the cosmos that
> >that would imply.
> I rather like this idea - but would like it more if we could work out a
> firm idea of how it works, preferably rulesy. Perhaps some kind of penalty
> to mundane situations when you've reached a certain point? In other words,
> as you become a great warrior through HQ you become less able to herd
> cattle, or your relationships to normal people suffer.
Potentially, yes.
In a way, I think _any_ HQ 'defines' you, which means in practice that in certain respects it limits you, too. A totally successful HQ limits you only in ways that you wanted, or at least were prepared for and accepted -- for example becoming "more like Humakt" is certainly going to screw about your Herd Cattle and your Relationship [anything], sooner or later. But then again, _no_ quest is "totally" successful. At best you have minor unintended consequences
> Definately has promise, but I suspect is a bit vague to fix the basic
> problem in the rules.
Well, you've already had my "mechanical" fix: a "doubling" of effect should be a +10 (or maybe a +20, but certainly some _fixed_ value). This is at least a partial fix, since it means you have to escalate the stakes, just to get the same benefit. (Or fleshing out the rule of thumb, if you have a series of quests, all for the same "thing", and your "HQC stake" stays the same size, your "benefit" goes down.)
Powered by hypermail