> This is very much the case for me, as well. I'm pretty sure that I
> didn't put more than +4 onto any of my current character's skills when I
> designed him. Certainly, his highest starting ability was 1W. (Now,
> after about ten sessions, its reached 4W, and I have a couple of other
> abilities over 20 as well). When I designed him, this just seemed the
> natural thing to do, and I assumed everyone else would do much the same
> - it didn't take long for me to realise that apparently this wasn't so!
(snip!)
I haven't actually had a chance to play yet, though I have done a bit of statistical analysis of the rules (like Jane, I'm a programmer).
Looking at HQ from a pure powergaming perspective, it seems to me that one powerful approach would be to concentrate everything on one fairly general skill, get everything else that can augment it, and boost that to the exclusion of everything else with later experience (the idea being that you use it with an improvisation penalty as often as possible).
For example: "The Gun Is Your Skill List". Diplomacy? "How about you do what I say, and I don't shoot you?" Lockpicking? "Blam Blam! Looks like it's open". Spellcasting? "Oi, wizard, do this or I'll waste you". (See Steve Jackson's "Munchkin's Guide" for much funnier examples).
Obviously I've gone for an extreme example here, but I can imagine that sort of thing at least being tried out by a dedicated powergamer in play. (Would I do it? That depends a lot on how long I thought the game was going to last - it's the sort of strategy that pays off better long term than short term, once the gulf between your 1W3 and the other players 10W skills becomes large enough that the improvisation penalty still leaves you on top).
-- GAZZA
Powered by hypermail