Re: Re: Mundane Supermen versus Supernatual Supermen

From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:24:10 +0200


Julian Lord
> > I've said several times that "everyday" experience don't
>> allow you to raise your ability to extraordinary.
>
>That isn't necessarily true in a magical world.

Possibly not, but it fits well with a mythical world. To become extraordinary you have to perform the extraordinary.

> > That's because people usually compare RQ rolls with HW extended
>> contests which isn't exactly a fair comparison, since extended
>> contests isn't comparable to anything in RQ. If you create a
>> conversion rate it should be based on ability tests and simple
>> contest.
>
>I disagree. Any conversion rate should be based on the most
>*meaningful* sections of the rules ; in HW, most meaningful
>contests are resolved not as simple dice rolls, but as extended
>contests ...

Possibly. Extended contests consist of a lot of 'simple dice rolls'. So why not compare the 'basic resolution units'?

There is, however, a comparison between HW extended contests and RQ: combat. Combat in RQ is essentially an extended contest without AP (but with HP); lots of consecutive opposed rolls.

> > I think HW is a very good game, don't think i don't. But much of the
>> disagreements here are caused by Greg's illbegotten and untested
>> brainfart to make multiple masteries as common as confetti, and which
>> was railroaded into HW.
>
>Was that one of Greg's ? :-(

Yep.

>Hmmm : is the 2w Running Ability of Horses and Mules a left-over from an
>earlier draft, perchance ?

No. The drafts didn't have any stats for beasts.

-- 
-
Mikael Raaterova        [.sig omitted on legal advice]

Powered by hypermail