Re: Re: broad abilities

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:00:01 +0100 (BST)

> From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:55:15 +0100 (BST), Alex Ferguson
> <abf_at_...> wrote:
>
> >> You can read that as meaning you can
> >> only increase an Affinity by +1, but equally it can be read as a cost
> >> PER +1, with no stated limitation.
> >
> >Fairly clearly not the intent, by comparison with the rest of the
> >table. Increasing a "normal" ability progresses as per the triangular
> >numbers, so the obvious extrapolation is to use the same progression
> >(tripled) here, if one wishes to read the table as "accidentally
> >omitting" this possibility, rather than precluding it.
>
> What makes this 'obvious'? The cost to buy one, two or more levels of
> a normal Ability is stated. The cost to buy a single point of
> Affinities (& Grimoires, etc) is stated. The only clear message is
> that buying 2 or more levels of an Affinity does NOT progress in cost
> as do normal Abilities.

One might well reply to this, "And why is this 'clear'?", but that might not help us get anywhere...

> I CAN believe it's not possible, but this is not stated anywhere.

The argument would be that it's not possible _because_ no cost is listed. (Carmanian logic, I suppose -- everything not explictly permitted is hereby forbidden.)

> If it IS
> possible to buy more than a point at a time, the table says each +1
> costs 3/6 points.

The table quite manifestly says nothing at all about _each_ +1, it says what _a_ +1 costs. Your argument seems to me to be entirely wooly: the table doesn't say what a +5 increase for an ability would be, but the progression established is surely pretty clear. Anyone saying I can obviously buy a +5 increase by buying five +1's, or a +2 and a +3, would rightly be laughed out of court.

This is something of an angels on pins argument, mind you, since anyone spending even 6 points at a pop isn't something I'd hold my breath to see...

The moral of the story is surely that it would have been somewhat clearer to give one progression (the triangular one: 1/3/6/10...), and then simply say, double costs if not used in episode, triple costs for affinities... (I'd like to think I suggested this at the time, but maybe I just now think I should have done...)

Powered by hypermail