> > >
>> >1 - the low rated character can lend APs to the higher rated
>> >character.
>> >2 - the low rated character can attempt to augment the higher
>> >rated character.
>>
>> And both are fine mechanism for that role. Neither, however,
>> offer a great deal of long term fun for a player if thats what you
>> do every session, I suspect. In both cases, real effect on the
>> contest is relatively marginal compared to successfully acting in
>> your own right.
>The occasions when I have used AP-lending, it has been extra-
>ordinarily effective.
And how useful would it be if the person they had been lent to had simply gone on to lose them?
And for the record, APs really are not that decisive in contests that are not based around two relatively
> > >Expecting every character to be able to directly act against every
>> >opponent in every contest is not, IMO, reasonable. But most of the
>> >time, all characters should be able to take part using the above
>> >mentioned support mechanisms.
>> >
>> >I understand that, in part, I have taken your quote out of context
>> >but, in the heat of your argument on sorcery being unbalanced in
>> >relationship to theism, you make an unjustified sweeping
>> >generalisation.
>>
>> Its not a sweeping generalisation, its a typical case.
>In your oppinion!
I think you misinterpreted my comments - I don't think every character should be able to directly act in every contest, but I do think that in the case of a contest *your character is designed to take part in* you should be able to do so. Design your character as a warrior, they should be able to directly take part in combat. Design your character as a magician, they should be able to take part in generic magical contests. Design your character as a healer, they should be good enough to take part in typical healing contests.
I don't think that is a 'sweeping generalisation', as all I am saying is that the game should be set up so that you use the games central mechanic (acting in a contest) for those occasions where you engage in the activity your character was designed for. On other occasions (which are numerous - your character is helping in some contest that is not their core competency, the narrator wishes to make you find allies or a McGuffin so she makes the contest too hard for you on your own, your character is supposed to be well below the campaigns general level of competence, for example) it might be fine, but the default must surely be competency.
> > Yes,
> Its bad when your character that is
> > supposed to be a magic specialist has an ability level so much
>> lower than the average that they can not effectively participate
>> in contests of magic, for example - the likely result of long term
>> play of a sorcerer PC.
>In our group, we have characters who specialise in different things.
>My character has a combat skill of 14. The best rating (in any
>ability) in the group is around 13W. Despite this, my character is
>quite effective in combat because he has followers that give him APs
>and also I _think_ before blindly attacking. It gives me great
>satisfaction when I help turn a combat in our favour even if I never
>act directly against the opposition.
So, you have a character that is not a fighting specialist, but can contribute effectively in combat because you have an effective support role. Fine.
The problem is not that characters can specialise in different things (which is cool and good), but that sorcerers are allegedly magic specialists, and STILL have low enough abilities to not be able to step to centre stage when it is a magical confrontation. Its good that characters sometimes will have to take a back seat - but its bad if they ALWAYS have to take a back seat (which you effectively have to do if you are never the most competent) (unless you design you character that way of course - if a sorcerer wants to design their character that way, the rules make it very practical for them to do so, and that is also good).
I don't have a problem with the idea of the 'utility belt' sorcerer, with many abilities at a low level, always with some interesting little spell that can't actually hurt anybody but that is a little bit useful - I just think that quite a few people wanting to play sorcerers will also be interested in playing 'powerful magician' characters, and the rules make it really really hard for them to do so (in a way that they do not for shamans and theists)
Besides, when it comes down to it - a reduced ability also means you have less APs to lend, and a lower ability value for augmenting. A poor ability is a poor ability, and lessens your ability to contribute in all ways. Yes, a bulk load of followers can solve the first one, but not everyone is going to want to.
> This is not a game system (never mind a Hero Wars
>system) but a player and narrator gamming style issue.
>
Obviously, the player and narrator are paramount. But the rules should aid them, not hinder them.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail