Why Relationships With People?
David Artman:
Organization, right. Damn (I thought I was gonna be God of Mountain Folk).
Devon, those suggestions are quite munchkinly, but fly in the face of the rules-as-written (as did my idea of Rel: Mountain Folk being pingable in conflicts with MF individuals).
Yep... gotta review that section before tonight.
I think that's got it for me, though--thanks, Ben.
devonapple:
Quote from: David Artman on January 08, 2008, 11:48:41 AM
Devon, those suggestions are quite munchkinly, but fly in the face of the rules-as-written (as did my idea of Rel: Mountain Folk being pingable in conflicts with MF individuals).
Yes, I have an unfortunate tendency to come out on the munchkin side of game balance, despite an aversion to the practice -- a "reluctant munchkin."
David Artman:
Hey, no blood, no foul. Gaming is ever about negotiation; if your group digs the use of a Rel in a non-RAW manner, then you're getting at Fun and Awesome and that the Point of Play, ya?
I just needed some actual-play-ish reasons why individual Rels got at Fun and Awesome, which I got and can understand.
lumpley:
It might interest you to know that Dogs' unassigned relationship dice are a direct descendant of Hero Quest's hero points. As such, they're MORE lasting and long-term useful than they might be otherwise. If I'd followed Hero Quest more closely, you'd spend your dice on one conflict and they'd be gone forever.
-Vincent
Ben Lehman:
Hey, Devon:
You're right about your example, I think. If someone wants to convince you that no one cares about you, you could conceivably bring in almost all of your relationships with individuals, because those relationships are at stake in the conflict.
yrs--
--Ben
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page