thread: 2009-04-10 : A Moment of Judgment

On 2009-04-15, Callan wrote:

Great posts, Ralph! Just bang on!

Just to sound out the idea with you, a few years ago I thought of this idea: That you pay, say ten points to activate a power, but the GM can make it cheaper if he so wishes (or leave it at the full price)

The thing is here, that powers which are sympathetic with the GM's idea of the game world, are likely to be cheaper to use. The more sympathetic, the cheaper, most likely. Of course, it doesn't force sympathy to happen - a GM could say full price even when it makes sense to him, but I think in general people are just naturally inclined to ask for less for things that please them in some way. Sympathy begets sympathy. Usually, anyway.

Rather than dealing in what is "more-or-less a matter of fact in the game's fiction", it deals in what is more or less a real life sympathtic responce in the GM. Which has nothing to do with 'facts', of course.

Not challenging anything in your posts, rather just posting to see how much we match up in mutual thought?

"1) Spend a X point to get +Y on your roll. Describe why.

2) The tactical judge for the scene decides which character holds the tactical advantage, if any. That player gets +Y to their roll.

I can promise you that the vast majority of players, in the seat of the tactical judge, will not rule for their characters %100 of the time."
With #1, your not going to see someone buy an advantage for their own character, 100% of the time, either.

They're still the same. The only difference is that in #2 you spend 0 points to get +y bonus, rather than 1 point.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":