Re: re: Defaults and who has em

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:28:48 +0100

On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:03:08PM -0700, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> Actually, I believe I suggested 0W2. "0" because you don't normally roll it;
> two masteries to give a "never fail" result. As I remember, we then
> descended into a typical HQ-rules muddle, much like this thread (and the
> Childbirth one) has done.

I might date the 'muddle' ever so slightly earlier than you place it. ;-) Trouble is, this isn't a 'rating', it's a 'notation'. If it's to simply mean 'automatic success', then fine, but why not just say 'automatic success'? OTOH, if it's supposed to work like an actual rating, then how does it fill that role? Can we roll it? Can we modify it?

I think what might be at least indirectly running into here is the lack of the equivalent of a "Take 5/10" rule, or some other way of modelling low-stress/low-variability situations; at least, not beyond the simplest possible one of "OK sure, it works", which the rules do not mechanically relate to any threshold of ability or resistance.

Cheers,
Alex.