> One thing to note in this discussion. Some questioned how useful
> adjectives were in describing resistances. That's not how it works.
> When we talk about a resistance being Hard, Very Hard, Nearly
> Impossible we are talking about an absolute modifier (+3, +6...) to
> the base resistance.
Agreed; and this is why, incidentally, the earlier suggestion from someone else about bench-marking scenarios as 'lower first mastery', or whatever, wouldn't work. Because what is a mastery in HQ2? It doesn't represent anything concrete.
Instead, one would benchmark scenarios by the narrative role that the heroes are expected to fill (and I am sure they will, if any ever actually get published). A scenario in which you are supposed to be regular cattle thieves is different from one in which are supposed to be the top heroes in the kingdom. Maybe in one campaign, regular cattle thieves have their best ability at 10W, and, say, the Full Moon Corps have theirs at 10W3, but, in another, the cattle thieves are at 15W3, and the FMC at 15W6. The scenario works equally either way.
It's not the way I'd do it, but it *does* make sense :)
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail