>If there happens to be any downtime, which is far from being a given.
>But I get the gist, and yes, this could clearly be generalised somewhat
>again. Not sure I'm wild about this, as it seems to lead to the
>somewhat curious disjunct where the player is responsible (entirely) for
>raising his followers' "ordinary" ability, and the GM (entirely) for
>their keywords.
But this is just like what happens to PCs. The player can raise their "ordinary" abilities, and only the GM can raise the keywords (the player can suggest what keyword was employed most, and I'd assume can do the same thing with the follower though given only one keyword, that's a tad moot).
>It'd make more conceptual sense to me to have them both
>'jointly managed' in some sense that I will entirely fail to make
>precise. (Nominate and confirm, perhaps, for you US constitution fans,
>or some sort of 'mixed initiative' approach.)
I get your point. I just don't want Followers to either become albatrosses taking up PC potence, or fall behind in effectiveness to the point of uselessness.
>A wider question is, how are HPs to be used in making/proposing changes
>not just to a given character, but his 'environment'.
Interesting question. Maybe a new thread?
Mike
Powered by hypermail