*nod* I see where you're coming from, but it does seem to be an odd response to me. There's a LOT in the book about not using an absolute scale, and so to answer a question on how to deal with something with the answer, "Just use a scale" caught me by surprise. If it had been, "Well, you could use a scale if you had to, the system can support that" then sure, but as the basic response... I'm surprised.
It's fine, I plan on ignoring him anyway, and go with credibility trumps all.
> Indeed to suggest "loosely quantifying what you get within certain
> mastery levels", is not quite to advocate a rigid proportional scale,
> it is just taking the advice in the Genre Pack section to a more fully
> realised level.
>
I'll have to go look at the genre pack section again. I didn't recall their being a suggestion to use a scale like that.
>
> The last point about dramatic ignorance is key, I think this is an
> approach that can only be achieved through flexibility and by viewing
> conflicts individually and in context.
>
Which I'm fine with.
>
> Batman v Superman comics were not really about who was strongest, we
> all knew the answer to that, they were not even about who was the most
> effective or even more radically who would win in a fight, the
> situation (usually an extremely contrived context) was the key.
>
Agreed. But I also think no one ever thinks of Batman as being defined by super strength. I'd be a little surprised if someone even put it on his sheet. And yes, I would rule - via credibility test - that any attempt to compete in a direct physical way with Supes would be an instant fail for Bats. It's how the rules read to me.
> I think you will only really get a handle on this issue through play
> and perhaps discussing any specific problems here if they arise.
>
Of course. It's not likely in that I doubt I'll be picking up a superhero game anytime soon. It's not an issue in the Space Opera game I'm running. The main scale difference there is ship vs person, and no one remotely considers that a credible contest. :)
>
> In principle I don't see any difference between this issue and the
> early discussions about Gloranthan scales.
>
I might have missed that one while my move and such was going on. HQ1
had a fixed scale for Gloranthan power and HQ2 doesn't. You don't get
"A minor god is W6" as a description anymore. Which I'm fine with.
>
>
> The Sartar Book and Return to Apple Lane seem to use guidance thus:
> "In magic and combat she is always a Very Hard obstacle". So one could
> say "In contests involving brute strength the Incredible Hulk resists
> at Nearly Impossible unless there is a dramatic reason to be lower".
>
Which would be a perfectly valid solution. Certainly I tend to use NPCs
in that manner all the time. (I've never quite understood why the book's
description of a big fight has fixed numbers for the NPCs.)
>
>
> As for PvP it is possible to rule that one player gets an automatic
> success based on credibility if the skill choices are so clearly based
> on spotlight superpowers, that could encourage less direct skill choice.
>
Which is, I believe, how Matthew, myself, and you all think it should be
done.
LC
Powered by hypermail