On 11 Feb 2010, at 14:39, ferguswindbag wrote:
>
> Most groups find plenty of ways of "doing it wrong" on their own
> initiative. My concern here is that you're over-interpreting the
> rules to the point of building in a whole extra level of "doing it
> wrong" on top of the usual.
Eh ? If you're not having fun playing, you're doing it wrong. Or someone is. That isn't any "new" idea.
> The core point is that that there's a specific game-mechanical cost
> already build into the resource-rated contests, in that the PCs are
> giving up the personal benefit they'd otherwise have accrued to
> themselves, and "donating" it to the community. Is it really
> necessary to stipulate that that has to take a whole session of
> play? (And by your extrapolation, even more so thus for
> "bolstering".)
If it is going to be something significant that the characters do, it
seems reasonable. And there are other rewards (like a directed
increase to their relationship with their community).
>
> Furthermore, "bolstering" is the mechanic one uses to offset any
> background _penalties_. If bolstering is going to necessarily take
> at least a session, then you're making interacting with the
> resources at all more time-consuming, since there's more of an
> imperative to "dealing with" resource penalties.
>
Your whole argument is based on the idea that sessions devoted to activities that improve resources are a chore that is done instead of simply grabbing personal benefits. I don't see that it has to be that way. And if your players see it that way then don't bother with the community resources rules.
Powered by hypermail