Thanks for wading through my message:
At 07:42 PM 6/22/2004 +0100, Benedict Adamson wrote:
>Andrew Dawson wrote:
> > I started this
> > during the HW days, and haven't seen a convincing reason not to
> continue. I
> > settled on 5 HP, but maybe 10 HP would work better. 24 HP seems too
> extreme
> > to raise a keyword.
>
>I'm not that comfortable with it myself. I chose 24 because there are
>typically 24 abilities in a keyword. 5 seems too low to me. How about 12?
12 would work. I'm probably going to leave it at 5 myself, but that's part of a timing issue: Toward the end of the game, I was considering making each adventure take a season, and raising one keyword by one per season seems about right to me if I want to eventually have PCs that can match published important NPCs. With PCs getting 6-12 HP per each 1-2 session adventure (and given that some will be spent during play), 5 is a better cost to me. The HQ recommendation for Saga improvement seems inadequate for the goal of creating PCs like those NPCs.
> > 6. I provided encounters that were best handled by varied abilities. There
> > was a fair amount of political intrigue and negotiation in my games,
>
>What happens when a character realises they can use one ability to do
>both? Yes, it is possible!
Out of curiosity, will you list a couple of these abilities? Persuade comes to mind, but I wouldn't allow it to take over a game, so I want to know what kind of abilities you are discussing. I'm pondering two changes to head off Persuade abuse as well, but must leave for a meeting, so next message.
> > 1. Use bonuses for specific appropriate ability use (improv bonuses),
> > instead of--or as well as--improv penalties. For example: Arm Wrestling
> > ability gets +10 in an arm wrestling contest compared to using Strong.
>
>I do that already. Isn't it recommended in the rules somewhere? Ought to be.
Maybe.
>This is not an issue of one player being bad. Or even of me being a poor
>narrator. I've seen the problem with several players, none of whom were
>munchkins, with several narrators. One of those narrators is a very good
>narrator.
Wasn't trying to imply any bad behavior, poor skill, or such, but will continue discussion if you're interested. I can imagine that revolving narrators would create a situation wherein well-defined rule changes would promote uniformly better play.
Thanks,
Andy
Powered by hypermail