Rob:
I agree with Trotsky. In my games I always rule that a player can
spend no more than 3 HP per game. I hand out xp HP seperatly. I found
that I had hoarders and spenders. It was unbalancing my group. I
suppose if you have all the players spending in the same way, no
problem.
Also, it seems to penalise those people who are really getting into the game with no character advancement.
I want mechanisms that encourage participative play, not penalise it.
> > 2. Award a single Hero point when you roll your skill number
exactly.
> >
>
> I've never liked this sort of approach. I'd rather hand out rewards
> based on what the characters did, and how well they did it, than on
> simply what they rolled. I wouldn't feel that I'd *earned* the hero
> point, just that I'd happened to roll a lucky number, and that
takes
> away a lot of the fun.
Agreed. HP should be used to reward good play.
> > 4. Add more guidelines for staging conflicts on the fly,
like "Use the
> > best combat ability +10 for a minor challenge, BCA +20 for an
average
> > challenge, etc."
I don't like this approach as a system. Oh, I use it as a technique sometimes, but it just renders any stat number completely meaningless.
I think that this is part of the problem with unfettered augmenting.
I am amazed that David Dunham (I'm not criticising, he's a great fellow) plays in a group where the concensus is that all the players go for exhaustive augmenting. My experience has been is that some players resent the handling time that augmenting hunting takes and just wont engage in it. Therefore two players with similar basic skill levels attempting the same challenge would have vastly differing target numbers. Makes planning games difficult.
To remove this in my games and to smooth things over I limit augments to kit +3 relevant. Controversial I know. I have generally GM'd HQ for many different groups of strangers with many different group dynamics/ player priorities and I find the above the least problematic.
Regards
Rob
Powered by hypermail