Re: RE: Re: Concentration (What Gods Know)

From: light_castle_at_...
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:55:27 -0500


See, you go to a scriptwriting workshop and then you return to find you were completely unclear but Mike has ended up clarifying it for you anyway.

At least you do when you are me.

> I'd been leaning that way up until lately. With the recent conversation, I
> understand better now that the choice between choising one otherworld or
> taking magic from multiple otherworlds does exist in play.

I have to agree that this last conversation between you and Greg was very helpful for understanding a bit more about the way it is perceived.

 In fact, mostly
> on the player level. That's key. You keep protesting that it has no in-game
> cognate as the characters are not aware of the distintions. And you're
> correct. The thing is that the player is aware of the distinction, and so he
> knows what the character is doing. So the decision in question is important
> to the player. Will my character be allowed to grow as a generalist, or do I
> decide to be a specialist?

And this has never been my problem with it. My problem, as you deduce below, is that mechanically it seems to be weighted all wrong. I do not mind at all the generalist vs specialist idea, but it seems to be the biggest such decision, even though it is one that doesn't seem "in-world" to be the biggest one.  

> Now as for the specific rule, I'm not sure that's implemented well.

That is what I was trying to get at with the "let's make this less digesty and bring it to the rules again".

I failed.
Utterly. :)

That is,
> double cost, though it is the lowest integer multiplicative increase is
> still +100% in cost. Which might be prohibitive for too many players. I
> think with a smaller surcharge or some other limiter, you might get a better
> effect. For example, I really wouldn't double the cost for new abilities.
> What's key is the idea that characters rarely get really good at something
> without specializing in it - not that they learn fewer magic abilities (in
> fact, one might surmise that they'd learn more if they were generalized).

Exactly. I like the idea, for instance, of the improv penalties for improvising active feats being halved. That works for me. It's a not-insubstantial advantage. (Sadly, only Theism seems to have something like this available.)

The hero point cost just seems too big a bonus, thus necessitating the whole "why doesn't" everyone concentrate paragraphs and such. Were concentration somehow more smoothly integrated into a "specialization payoff vs generalist payoff" I'd have less problems with it. But it seems that the incentives as presented are too high.

> Yes, this sort of thing can theoreticall be left to entirely player
> decision-making, but I think it's interesting to have mechanical backup on
> it. Makes the decision to concentrate at least as momentous as the one on
> which diety to worship or the like. For the player, if not for the
> character.

I can see that. I do support some kind of mechanical back up (something which exists for the Devotee level as well, since you must often give up all magic) but I think the half-cost hero point thing seems to be the wrong mechanical solution (IMVHO).

LC

Powered by hypermail