"NARRATIVE" POINT OF VIEW : "Abilities come in two parts - the description and the score. The description determines the applicability of the ability to a conflict, the score determines how effective the ability is at resolving conflicts in the character's favour."
So what's matter most is the description : "novice jogger" (5w1) is no match for "run like the wind" (13). No contest is required, the one with "run like the wind" is unbeatable (except special situation).
FIRST PROBLEM : What do we do when descriptions implie that, under some circunstances, the weaker abilty can beat the stronger ?
Example : a running man (run : 5W1) vs a man on a horse (gallop : 17).
ANSWER :
"It depends on the contest circumstances - which is best handled with situational modifiers.
A human runner trying to beat a racehorse on a track is going to take a beating. On the other hand I know which one I would back to race to the top of the tower up the spiral staircase to give a warning signal.
Any scales or tables should come with lots of advice to the effect that few game contests will be on racetracks (or their equivalent) so any measure of optimum speed is largely irrelevant. Put the two contestants on a crowded battlefield and each has advantages that might outweigh those of the opponent - I'd let the contest go ahead and the outcome will tell me if the horse found sufficient open ground to use its greater top speed or if the greater focus and agility of the professional runner won out.
The same applies to "can I lift it" or similar contests, the outright mass of an object is far less important than your ability to get to grips with it, find good leverage etc. Tables of mass vs resistance can lead people into the mistake of thinking that all 500kg obstacles are equal - or all 10km distances so I think they need to be heavily surrounded by advice on their limitations."
LACKS :
2)--- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "DreadDomain" <dreaddomain_at_...> wrote:
> Tables like this would be guidelines. People are intelligent enough
> to realize running 10km in a straight of a flat land during a cool
> sunny day is easier than running a 10km in a sinuous broken path up
> a mountain during a snow storm. At least they could start from a
> common ground (the guideline) when assigning resistance.
>
> Implying that people won't be smart enough to use these guidelines
> in a intelligent way is either patronizing or trying to find
> arguments where there isn't any.
SECOND PROBLEM : If descriptions are more revelant than the rank number, what the point of having a rank number ?
Contests can be solved with a simple probability of success : "good fighter" vs "born with a sword", then "born with a sword" has 75% chances of success plus / minus situation modifiers...
What the difference between "run like the wind 17" and run like the wind "5W1" if it's not a matter of speed scale ?
Even, narrative way defenders are not quite clear on the subject :
> every rating measures the USEFULNESS of an ability, thats more a
> quality than a quantity !
> i admit this can be pretty abstract sometimes, but most examples,
> people come up here, dont occur that way in actual play...
>
> the mastery gives us some hint about dimension
> love is love, wether its 17 or 17M4
> love 17 is less useful in a contest than love 17M4
> and love 17M4 is more in the heroic realm, than love 17, judging
> from the rating alone
> but i think in the end, it all depends on the story
> it depends on how the love ability is used in the story !
_ "love is love wether its 17 or 17W4" implies we have no need for a
rank number
_ "and love 17M4 is more in the heroic realm, than love 17, judging
from the rating alone" implies that the rank matters, because "love
17W4" is kind of supernatural (mental link, love through death or
reincarnation...)
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
"CONFLICT AND STORY" POINT OF VIEW :
Forget about your examples. It doesnt matter who you want to pit against whom. Its always rating against rating, doesnt matter how many masteries we are talking here !
It all depends on your game. How are the player characters related ? They will probably be all in more or less the same league in the beginning.
So you wont have one character with superstrength 17 and another one
with superstrength 17M6.
Lets say you use the usual technique to stat up your characters. That
means all your starting heroes will have ratings between 17 and 5M.
Now the story begins. In one scene you want to show your players how cool they are so you pit them against some villains with lower ratings.
They players win, they learn something about the game mechanics, now you want to provide them with a challenge, so antagonists of equal strength pop up.
Maybe your players win again and now find out who the bad guy behind all of this is - we are talking about "boss-monster" here. So boss-monsterá, ahem boss-super-villain´s, ratings are greater than the heroes´.
What will they do ? Will they be able to defeat boss-villain if they
all team up ?
Will they be defeated and come back with a vengeance in the next episode ?
Thats story !
See, what i mean ?!
FIRST PROBLEM : It's no answer !!!
Yes, it's basic gamemastering skill... Everybody does that, even simulationists...
When things are planned, no problem, adversaries are built up to be defeated, to be nearly invincible, or to be challenging. Every gamemaster in the world think that way, even space-opera or rolemaster addicts ! ;)
SECOND PROBLEM : You need a scale and use a scale in facts !!!
> > Of course it can
> >
> > human 2M
> > superhero 17M
> > cosmic threat 17M2
>
> I can't help noticing that those three ratings seem to be on the
> same scale, which is exactly what I've been arguing for, and you
> seem to have arguing against. Or is there something in the above
> that I'm missing here?
THIRD PROBLEM :
Without a scale how do you decide wich type of obstacles your players
will encounter ?
It's not enough to estimate the scale of the situation :
> Say our hero has close combat 5M
>
> If we want him to be a challenge we make him of equal strength.
> If we want him to be a hard nut we give him a small advantage say
> +5 = 10M.
> If we want him to predominate we will add +20= 5M2.
> Etc.
You need to describe the players' opponents in a convenient way.
If you have a war band of yggites pirates with an average of 10W1 in
combat skill and you choose in your story to give them a good
challenge (opponents with an average of 15W1). How would you describe
the opponents ?
Maybe you need a scale to decide if this kind of combat skill
correspond to shepherds, militia, novice weaponthane, veteran dara
happa legionnaire... To choose the shape, the nature of theses
challenging opponents.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
So it seems that the bone of contention is more the accuracy and the number of scales and tables than the need of having some or not.
PS : excuse my not-so-fluently english
Cheers
Boris
Powered by hypermail