Andrew Janssen wrote: > Jefferson wrote: >> Andrew Janssen wrote: >> >>>I would go one step further and suggest a rule that the maximum number >>>of fudge points for a single action be 4, with 8 being the total maximum >>>per turn. >> >>Now this I _really_ object to. It says, "we're stacking the deck to >>support people who know the game better." If this rule had been in effect >>I would have never joined. >> >>I wouldn't mind doing away with fudge points altogether, but restricting >>_how they're spent_ is cliquish in the extreme. > > I don't understand your objection, Jeff. I had thought that there wasn't > really much point in spending more than 4 points on an action, but > perhaps I'm confused about the way fudge points work. (It might be that > it makes the most sense to spend them in multiples of 4 . . .) 0 fudge points gives a die result of: - 0 + 1 fudge point gives a die result of: 0 + 2 fudge points gives a die result of: + It makes most sense to spend them multiples of 2, and while the average gain for each set of 2 increases up to 8 points the 8 to 10 gain is less than the 6 to 8 gain. > As for the 8 fp/turn limit, I think it's a question of game > balancing--in fact, the 4 fp/action limit is also a game balance > question. So, what's that question? I don't see it. > How easy do we want to make it to achieve successes of Suberb > (+3), Legendary (+4) or more? Those aren't the successes. From the rules: +7 Mythic success cool... +6,+5 Extraordinary success special/permanent effects possible +4,+3 Superior success +2 increase possible +2,+1 Complete success +1 to one or two determinants 0 Marginal result none, or balanced modifiers So, a quad action (+2), with 8 fudge points (+4) begins with +6 successes at a horrendous cost in resources, and the chance of a +7 or greater is limited (less than 1 in 3 IIRC). Are you saying that the possibility of Mythic successes should be removed altogether? Then why not just change the success table? > I disagree that limiting fudge point expenditures per turn would favor > low participation. I certainly wouldn't reduce my contributions, anyway. It doesn't favor low participation, it discourages high participation (because people don't get anything from it). Since I think we want to encourage people who want a high degree of participation to join it doesn't make sense to put anything in the rules that looks like a block to their participation. That's the first thing an outsider would perceive about this rule, whether it's true or not, particularly since no reasons were given for the restriction. > My opinion on this might also relate to the way I tend to spend fudge > points: only one or two per action per turn--although I've spent 8 this > turn. From what I've seen, you tend store up your fp's, and then spend > them all at once, but that's just my impression. Yes. When I spend points I average about 6 an action, and there are two circumstances where I spend them. If I want the best success possible on an action I spend 8 points. If I want for action to succeed I spend enough to bring the average successes up to +1. (I've never spent 10 points, but if faced with Single Epic action I might do so.) I don't see why my style of play should be discouraged. -- Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
