- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
- Other mail archives:
**!!!!!!>**Visit the Search Engine of**Lhankor Mhy****<!!!!!!**

From: Alex Ferguson <*abf_at_...*>

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:50:25 +0100 (BST)

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:50:25 +0100 (BST)

Ah, a topic close to my heart... Maybe a little too close, I still have the scars on my ribcage to show for this rule. ;-)

Timothy Byrd:

*> Looking closely, I'm not sure I understand the conditions for the*

*> cancelled masteries special case. So I just assumed that if neither*

*> side has a mastery or they don't have the same number of masteries,*

*> then both sides rolling a failure, means marginal defeat for both.*

Correct.

*> Otherwise (i.e. both have masteries and both have the same number of*

*> masteries) then low roll gets a marginal victory and tied rolls are no*

*> effect. Is this correct?*

Right again.

*> It means the rule only applies if both*

*> sides have exactly one mastery and both roll a fumble, which implies a*

*> no effect, so why bother? When does the mastery special rule really*

*> apply?*

Exactly when you say, above! Say I have 2W, and you have 3W (or I have 2W8 and you have 3W8: let's think big, here!). I roll a 7, and you roll a 6 -- oops, we both 'fail'. But that makes no intuitive sense: it's not that we're both klutzes, rather, we're both phenomonally skilled, and evenly matched. Hence the special case: rather than us both 'leaking' AP like crazy, until one of us 'flukes a lucky hit', we treat it in much the same way as if we'd both succeeded: low-roller wins. In other words, we don't get the oddness of 20 vs 20, both nearly always 'hit', while 1W vs. 1W, both nearly always miss.

This rule isn't so much 'outcome-oriented', though it does make a small difference there, as simply to make the 'process' a little less ridiculous. ("And Sir Gawaine and Sir Lancelot did skillfully each club himself into unconsciousness, simultaneously.")

Cheers,

Alex.

*Powered by hypermail *