Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ron Edwards, July 08, 2003, 03:27:41 PM
Quote from: jrsI have played countless hours of nethack without using backup saved games, so that when the character dies ya start over from square one with the only possible benefit being that you might encounter the dead character's ghost and treasure. This has put me in pretty much the same mindset that Mike describes-- it's a gamble and that to me is the point of this type of game.
QuoteOn Adventure Points for combat, are you using the system where all participants in the combat get the full MR of foes slain, or where the MR is divided by the number of participants, and each gets that many APs? It seems to me that the former case encourages having multiple PCs... there's less of a drawback to it. In the latter case, if everyone has 2 PCs in a single fight, then each PC gets half as many APs.
QuoteA second bit to note is the gaining of APs from saving rolls. Combining this with the fact that SRs can be player-generated from using interesting tactics, this gives players an extra incentive to use interesting tactics (more APs!) and, in the case where each player is keeping a stable of characters, adds a resource-allocation bit on SRs called for by the GM. For example, if the "point man" for the party is always the same, that character will tend to get more APs by virtue of having to make more SRs. Of course, this can lead to a viscious circle -- someone gets put out in front because they have the best SRs for most traps, they gain extra experience from those SRs, and because of that experience, their advantage on SRs increases even more.
QuoteThis, though, is a resource-management challenge -- do I constantly use my best resource, or do I take a chance by using a lesser resource, and thereby allow it to advance? To me, having to make those sorts of decisions seems like it would actually contribute to my enjoyment (assuming I'm in the right mindset for T&T at all).
QuoteRon, could you be kind enough to tell where you found the mention of multiple characters as a "stable"? Section number preferably; I have the Corgi edition of 5th edition, which has different page numbering from the "standard" version.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsA list of questions? Oh boy!
Quote from: Ron EdwardsAs it turns out, the SR increases are fun, but they are piddly in comparison with the combat rewards. You get, usually 2d6 from SRs, whereas (in our game) a solid monster fight gets each player-character around 100, at this point. The SRs are worth just enough to keep people motivated to do nifty things, working toward their PCs' strengths as I described above, but not enough to override plain old combat acumen.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsQuoteThis, though, is a resource-management challenge -- do I constantly use my best resource, or do I take a chance by using a lesser resource, and thereby allow it to advance? To me, having to make those sorts of decisions seems like it would actually contribute to my enjoyment (assuming I'm in the right mindset for T&T at all). H'm ... are you assuming that you increase an attribute by using it? That's not the case. Every level, you pick an attribute to improve. LK is the cheapest (add 2x new level #), IQ and DX are most expensive (add 1/2 new level #), unless I'm mis-remembering.In other words, you can mainly use your best attributes and, when increasing in level, increase your less-good ones.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIt's in the Adventure Points chapter (quoted it in the Gamism essay, by the way). I *think* that's section 1.9, but I do know it's in the first chapter.