I agree about the Masteries. But, to be clear, I'm giving the opponent a bonus, not subtracting from the player. I'm increasing the opponent's resistance to your maneuver.
>That all said, Ron's rules of currency applies. A bonus one way
>is the same as a penalty the other.
That's a rule for the game Sorcerer, not a principle that works for every game. In point of fact, giving the player a bonus (your method) or not giving the opposition a bonus (my method) have very different results in terms of odds. Your system would allow a character worse than their opponent to suddenly have a better ability than the opponent, simply by moving to a surprise maneuver. My system assumes that you're always trying to surprise your opponent, and that he'll get better at defending himself if you don't. Big difference in effect.
More importantly, however, is the metagame effects. That is, you're really reinforcing a metagame feel, while I'm trying to stay much more in-game. I'm looking for Congruence in Sim and Nar directions (to get realy GNS about it). That is, I have a rationale that's based on a "what would happen" sort of logic while yours is a what would be cool logic. I think mine will produce cool stuff as well, so both sides of me are happy. While you only have the Nar side, and don't care about the additional plausibility.
>With that, I find positive reinforcement tends to drill things into
>folks heads quicker than "Oh, yeah, I forgot, he does get a -10
>when I do something cool!". Personal preference.
Actually, I agree that positive reinforcement is best. Given my track record, you can't believe otherwise, can you?
But in this case, I think that players will see the opponent figuring your tactics out as standard, and changing skills as a way to gain a bonus to cancel that. That is, if I'm really consistent in raising the opposition's bonuses in a way that mostly seems non-drrama based, but rather Sim, that's just your standard sort of modifier, not really a penalty. In fact, it makes your opponent more daunting, not your character less effective. So, no "deprotagonization" going on here. No more so than if I said that your opponent had a bonus defending from a high position.
This all works in reverse as well, if you make a lame defense, I'll give the attacker a bonus for the ease of hitting. This all goes for the opposition as well. That is, if I as GM don't want to describe their defense well, I'll say that they're uninspired in their attack or defense, and give you a bonus. Extra mook rule there, but with a Sim explanation.
So, yes, this is a preference difference, but one that stresses my need for as much Sim as I can get while still keeping the dramatic potential there.
Note that, as the rules stand that these sorts of bonuses and penalties are a normal part of the rules in a Sim sense. That is, the rules do say that modifiers apply. So that means that the GM should, in fact, give out bonuses to participants in the right circumstances. So I'd do that as well.
But the bonuses and penalties that I'm giving out don't represent a drift from the rules so much as a guideline for one good way to use the existing rules. Your suggestion represents a drift away from the Sim base of the modifier rules that I think is unneccessary. You get the same drama no matter how the inclusion is incentivized; all that's required is that we get the other stats into play. Which both methods will do, IMO.
Remember Narrativism isn't about wild descriptions neccessarily, it's about bringing in factors that are important to the character. So what we want is the player to use their "Hates Lunars". It require some cinematic description to make it pertinent; any inclusion meets the need. My method just makes the inclusion more plausible, IMO, while still leaving the wild description open if that's what the play group likes.
I'm not saying your method won't work or anything. Just that it tinkers with things unneccessarily to get the effect, IMO.
Mike
Powered by hypermail