After having reviewed the rules--see my other post--I find myself in general agreement with you. I still don't see any benefit to spending more than 8 fps per action, though. Andrew Jefferson wrote: > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
