>Wulf (I think it was Wulf) pointed out that there is a
difference
> between Good Looking and Large, which I'll grant.
I agree with that also. But it reminds me strongly of the RQ rules with a distinction between STR, SIZ, CON and so on, and abilities, which are less limited.
Aside from Large (and its derivatives), which type of abilities would
you see as inherently quantifiable ?
Strength ?
Speed ?
(by the way, Good Looking is quantifiable : the Helen is the unity :
beautiful enough to put 1000 ships at sea and make war. The Millihelen
is more useful for normal girls)
The problem is that, this being a magical world, any ability can reach stratospheric levels without breaking the rules... I like the story fo the giant girl. That's a good justification of a PC growing over time. don't Giants do just that ? (well, they may also become stupider and slower, which would make nice flaw, apart from a growing social problem).
In fact, I would be perfectly happy with some scales showing some ability levels and how people perceive this. I was quite happy to learn in TR that thanes have 10W for the good ability, clan champion 10W2 and tribal champion 10W2. It helps me greatly to decide NPC abilities.
> I do wonder, however, how high
> any ability can be raised without magic being a factor.
> Once an ability gets to 3 Masteries, non-masters are going
> to have virtually no chance against them.
Before that, no ? At 1W2, any roll is a critical succes ? (well 20 may
be only normal).
I think that at 3 masteries, people can do things we see in Hong Kong
movies : parrying arrows with their blades, crushing rocks with their
bare fists, jumping over buildings, without using any feat. Or, you
migth say, they made the feats a part of themselves, and are using
them naturally, as other people breathe.
And the setting is such, that it shouldn't be too difficult to find something for players with Heroic Pottery skills.
Philippe
Powered by hypermail