>From: "Jane Williams" <janewilliams20_at_...>
>Min-max. Yeah.... And it comes in my top 10 "roleplaying moments I
>will remember", so yes, it was fun.
If you hadn't had the relationship, but another ability, would she have dived in front? I refer only to problematic min-maxing like Scott is suggesting, where the players ignore drama for the sake of always winning. If it happens that drama and min-maxing coincide, then that's great. In fact, I'd say that this is precisely what makes HQ the best game I've ever played.
A counter-example would be something like, "Then they had Jake's character jump in front, just because he had a higher rating."
> > You guys were doing way more than that when you teamed up.
> >... about +30, IIRC.
> > Which put them just about at parity. Which was hella-cool,
>
>Yes, it's good to be able to do this from time to time. Anyone else from
>the Swords group following this list at present? Remember when we had
>six Swords of Humakt, plus multiple followers each, all carefully
>stacking augments? Because the challenge in question was the final
>station of a HQ, and we had a dragon to kill. According to the myth,
>with one blow. Yes, we narrated every augment, and yes, it died. And we
>*needed* those five masteries, and the hero-point, and the external
>support, and bidding every AP we had.
Awesome!
>But there's no way we'd do that for every combat.
Of course not. That's my point. Precisely as many augments come out per conflict as need to come out to make play fun. Sometimes that's zero. Sometimes it's +30 (or more in some cases as you point out). All depends on how dramatic the situation is.
Mike
Powered by hypermail