From: Loren Miller (loren@wharton.upenn.edu)
Date: Mon 21 Jul 1997 - 20:11:47 EEST
Way back on July 6, "Jane Williams" <janewill@mail.nildram.co.uk> replied
to Luc Lavergne:
> > The player HQer would propose a range of mundane effects which would
> > reflect his journey in the Heroplane and put some reasons to support
> > them. In return, the GM would analyse those reasons, making them
> > strong, normal, weak or simply dismiss them, and a simple roll would
> > resolve the problem.
> "The GM would analyse those reasons" - this is where the hand-waving
> comes in. In fact, it's the same bit of hand-waving we had before.
Actually, it isn't hard to do the analysis. If the reasons agree with
current Truth in this group's version of Glorantha (including the results
of previous HQ) then they're strong. If they directly oppose current Truth
then they're weak. If they are incredibly silly or the GM dislikes their
feel then they're stupid. Strong gets +1, weak gets -1, stupid gets thrown
out. Each AND gets +1, each ACTUALLY gets -1, and each player's vote gets
+1. And then you have a roll-off between the possible arguments, and the
winning argument becomes True. That's where the rules of the matrix game
prove useful to bypass disagreement, though in my experience you usually
already know which argument will win before you even throw dice, because
one argument generally has a huge lead over the others.
- --
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller <loren@wharton.upenn.edu>
A priest, a rabbi, a Penn student, and an elephant walk into
a bar. The bartender says, "what is this, some kind of joke?"
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 19:59:34 EEST