> >So I set her abilities in 1613 (or any other date before
> 1620) by what
> >theirs are? Fair enough. As long as she doesn't end up with a nasty
> >step up or down from 1619 to 1620.
>
> IIRC, only Tapping reduces abilities, so I can't think why
> her player-matching abilities would need to go down.
Some of them will anyway in 1611. She drops Vanganth, changes to Dar. Her flight affinity vanishes, for starters. But I'd agree that in general *dropping* her or anyone else to match the players or to readjust aim at the 1620 stats would be bad, and difficult to justify.
> 1. But a film can convey setting far faster -- think of Mos
> Eisley in Star Wars.
Who? Or is that "What?"?
A good author can convey setting in a medium size paragraph. Which will take me about a second to read. Yes, that's a *good* author, they don't all manage it, but it can be done. And of course it's what I'd aim to do in a Pbem game (dragging this vaguely back on topic). Spend a few hours polishing some prose for a new setting.
> 2. A film can convey the correct speed of things. My wife and
> I just watched "Fast Runner," and she says now she
> understands "tribal time." (Desite the name, it's not a
> fast-paced film, but I suspect it is a very accurate
> portrayal of Inuit life.)
Sounds like one to watch, then. But an awful lot get this, as much else, wrong. Hence, presumably, the number of people saying the equivalent of "they get away with this on film, so we can in games."
> I've sometimes thought that all progression should cost 1 HP
> + the number of masteries you will have (so 19 -> 20 = 1 HP,
> and 20 -> 1W =
> 2 HP)... I think this is roughly the same as your suggestion,
> but it encourages broadening.
I can see this is something I'll have to think about. Plenty of time yet, though.
Powered by hypermail