| From: | ">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Magical Stuff, and miscellany (Merry Holidays to everyone! ) |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:34:30 -0500 |
<Snipped...>
> [Teos Abadia writes]
> I like the idea, but agree that you need a further limitation.
There are a >couple of ways to go. One is what Donald pointed out,
something like Talismonger and >force the team to have all or a certain
number of mages/shamen. Another is to award >something like a "focus
token" which would have a certain effect, like trash to modify >the die
roll of a magic gear card by + or - 1. I think just having a requirement
of at >least three mages or shaman is pretty good, but I would keep the rep
low, like 20. The
>idea is you are doing an investment, going after power rather than rep.
If anything, the reward for finishing the objective should be permanent in
nature. Using your 'focus token' idea, instead of trashing to modify a die
roll, it should be part of a gear card. Unless the gear card itself gets
trashed, it should always be there, to help or hinder as the case might be.
Or depending on what the objective gave as a reward, a mage or shaman
might personally benefit with whatever he/she is using. The reputation
should be low in nature, with possibly the clause of if another team that
does not meet the requirements achieves the objective, they get x rep for
destroying the focus token, taking away a potential boost from mage or shaman.
>>Plus as a whole, the game itself seems limiting - attack values cover
everything from >>hand-to-hand to weaponry to this and that. As others
have mentioned before, too bad >>runners did not have two separate values
for at least hand-to-hand and weaponry.
> [Teos Abadia writes]
> Well, I don't think those limits have to stay. You can create
runners, or even >a contact, that can enhance this:
<Snipped example...>
But the original point I wanted to make was a runner having both values
still can use whatever weapon and have the same results. Using your
example, a runner can boost his indirect fire, but if he/she does not have
a indirect weapon, using a hand-to-hand weapon will achieve nearly the same
damage in the end. If said runner had no clue how to use a hand-to-hand
weapon but only indirect fire ones, unless the player can pull that
required weapon into play, that runner is a bit useless. Currently, if
Lord Torgo went empty handed, he causes, what - 9 points of damage? Add a
gun and he causes another 2-3... or add a katana and he adds (guessing)
3-4. But what if Torgo could not use a gun. Yes he could still cause the
original 9 points, but until a hand-to-hand comes into play, that is his
maximum damage. Load him with guns but not having the required skills or
still, a lower attack value, it creates an opportunity for diversity
instead of more of the same it seems.
<Snipped...>
> [Teos Abadia writes]
> I am a little confused by what you are saying. In my opinion, the
original >creator of a large set should be able to drive the process.
Someone can always propose >a theme and ask for people to share the
process, creating a group like the one you >describe, but if an author
wants to drive their own ideas, you can't really take that >away from them.
> Teos.
I was referring to a previous post you made asking whether or not there
should be chosen individuals that should decide what is net card expansion
acceptable or not (that was how I interpreted what you said). For example,
currently Donald is working on the vampire theme he started. There has
been input from Matt, you, myself, a few others with either revisions
and/or expansions upon his idea. Unless another creates an outpour of new
card ideas up and beyond the number Don originally posted, I personally
feel the final decision for the cards should be Don's. Yet if there was
someone chosen to be the final arbitrator for net expansion cards, in this
case with the vampires, who actually has the final decision - the original
creator or the chosen editor? A small group would be much more acceptable
than a solo effort. There would be a better melting of decisions with
possibly the original creator having more pull. And further revisions
could be set in without having a single individual locked dead on his/her
view of the way the card ~should~ be.
Yet you, Teos, seem to have the power of print card maker locked away *smirk*.
This whole idea, of course, depends on whether or not net expansion cards
will even go. From what I have seen, the response has been a bit low.
Though I am at fault myself for poor responses, at least direct inquiries
in my direction will generally get a prompt response. Such as when you,
Teos, asked what was the whole point of a card I created. After looking
over one version and comparing it to my original, I e-mailed a reply.
Whether or not there will be a change I don't know. I would hope so.
As a whole, the Amerindian expansion is very good for a first attempt.
Reading over the cards, they 'feel' proper. But until I finally play this
silly game, I won't know if they are truly legit or not.
Have a better one,
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<
