Greg may have underlined this, but he is also wrong. I like a less mastery-inflated world, and have vociferously argued for such. Which doesn't necessarily lead to "dirty, hungry and will kill for clacks" type of play.
Being able to do your job properly means achieving good enough results frequently enough. If a bog standard npc is a farmer, then he can farm. I set that rating at 10. If that farmer wants to manage his stead at least as good as last year, then there is no contest. If he wants to improve his lot, there is a contest. Since marginal failure carries almost no negative consequences (annoyances mostly) he does about as good as last year on both marginal failure and victory.
This Greggly Fluff about mastery requirements to do your job is really about different ways of looking at contests. And Greg's way is wrong. Masteries are supposed to be awesome. Greg's assumptions makes them ubiquitous. Harrek isn't more than a mastery better than a tribal champion, and he's supposed to be the unsurpassable King of Carnage!
I'll stop before i start ranting.
-- - Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
Powered by hypermail