*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 25, 2022, 02:33:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 53 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: [Nine Worlds] High-level play kicks into gear  (Read 10841 times)
Matt Snyder
Member

Posts: 1380


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2005, 02:51:41 PM »

Cool. Agreed on those points, Ron. You're right -- that the talismans are "mortal" things (that is, they can be destroyed) is a good argument for allowing this.

I say go for it, and I'll include that in revisions.
Logged

Matt Snyder
www.chimera.info

"The future ain't what it used to be."
--Yogi Berra
Eero Tuovinen
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 2591


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2005, 04:23:07 PM »

Now I'm again all confused. Not that it's anything new at this stage.

Is there a permanent limit on Power and Urges? Ron seems to imply so:

Quote from: Ron
P.S. Oh, and yeah, Power and Urges should be capped at 9 for Talismans, just like they are for everything else in the universe. No biggie there.


But what about the Primarchs and worlds detailed in the setting section? They have higher Power, at least. And while the individual Urges are not, their sums certainly are.

--

As for pumping talismans up later, I never caught the idea that it couldn't be done. It's true that there is a theoretical currency problem in doing it either way, though. Specifically, allowing the pump-up really rewards developing just one or two talismans. But Ron is also right about not allowing it making it pretty hard to get useful talismans.

As for Ron's arguments for allowing it... that "gods hate talismans" thing is just an argument about setting interpretation and GM fiat. I'm not seeing how it's different than the perennial D&D argument about paladin alignment restrictions; the GM "should" make the game world behave in a certain way to balance a mechanical advantage. Didn't work in D&D, why would it work in 9W?

The other three points are solid, though, and largely why I interpreted it that way without a thought when first reading that part. I'm worried about the counterargument, though, because it's one of the most fatal currency problems a game can have: there is never a reward system reason for a player to get those small talismans when he can save slots and increase effectiveness much better by having big ones. It's not really enough of a reason to do it that way just because the only other suggested option (not allowing pump-ups at all) is worse.

Thus I'd almost suggest having some kind of limitation in the talisman pumping... the ability caps Ron suggests don't really help, because they just mean that the optimal method is to work one talisman to the max before starting another... How about this: a talisman can only be improved after locking the attribute to a higher value. That should make it more of a question of opportunity, I should think. (You can see it as making the improvement in question permanent. It could also be possible to allow the converse mechanic of reducing a value to equal a locked temporary value, freeing up pride (or perhaps tricks?).)
Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!