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.
