It might yet arrive. YahooGroups are notable for occasionally having tremendous latency (in the days).
>I'm torn on this equipment idea. On one side, I think it is more elegant to
>think that
>having the "right" equipment means you get to use the skill at the normal
>level. Without
>the equipment, the skill simply isn't available in the direct sense. OR
>only available with
>a modifier. I'm not convinced of the Wealth idea below (although it is
>intriguing).
If you don't like the wealth idea as an abstract, then I suggest that players use their wealth rating to do contests to purchase superior arms and armor. That is, a success gives you an excuse to then spend a HP to cement some better equipment. Again, I'm not saying that better equipment shouldn't be available. Just that it should only be available through play, and subject to the normal rules for cementing. So, if I want a 5W sword (worth a +3 augment), then I have to roll my wealth against the 5W (modified by haggling abilities, etc, etc). Failure can mean, BTW, that you get the thing, but the "injury" that occurs goes to your wealth rating, representing a current cash shortage.
>I'm wondering if in the end it makes a whole hell of a lot of difference,
>though. If we're
>keeping relative differences, does any of this matter (seeing as the game
>is a game of
>relative difference as is?).
Well, mechanically not much. But two weeks ago, I had a player asking me, "So, I have all these interpersonal abilities - can I have some equipment to augment it? You know, a +3 necklace to make me look good?" That sort of thing. Well, he was in a position where this would be similar to a warrior getting "standard" equipment. So shouldn't he get a +3 item? And another to represent armor? And another to represent a shield? I mean, if a warrior can automatically recieve +7 to his main abilities, why not a merchant?
Can you see the slippery slope? Where does it end? I can set artificial limits on the number of items, but then why not go with the zero concept which says that a PC has whatever equipment they need, but it doesn't have to be enumerated. I don't have to make the judgement call that the game otherwise requires me to make using the equipment rules - namely how much free equipment each character has available. Which is good because every time I gave something like that out, I felt the eyes of the other players who were paying for cementing charms and such boring holes into me. Oh, they probably didn't really mind, but there's just this dichotomy between how the normal equipment rule works, and how much it costs to buy everything else. With my new method, everything costs the same.
>For weapons, what do you do with animals and their natural weaponry?
This argues in my favor. I really don't want to add a claw bonus to the Clawing Ability of a bear. Just as I don't want to add a "fists" bonus to a boxer.
>There are many
>uses of a skill (not only in augments) that might be possible without the
>equipment.
>(Surely using Sword and Shield combat to assess and opponent's ability in
>sword and
>shield combat makes sense, although different Narrators will apply
>different improv
>modifiers one might assume.)
True, actually. But why should this be rated any lower than the use of the standard equipment?
>What about appropriate magical equipment for rituals? Does that get figured
>in here?
>What does that do to "fixed" external resistances like opening 10W3 portals
>and the
>default magic of 14?
No changes. That is, everything augments just as they did previously. If a ritual requires standard equipment, then no bonus. If you have superior equipment, or other bonus situation presents itself, then, of course, you get a bonus.
Mike
Powered by hypermail