[projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum
- From: James Durrant <james.durrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:15:13 +0100
Given the controversy, given the difference in wording is so subtle that it
barely makes a difference, and given that it isn't likely to make a difference
to how readers decide to act... I would probably suggest the wording should
remain unchanged. I don't want to deviate, but I wouldn't want to go down the
road of adding rules where they are not needed - Lone Wolf is about a single,
specific character. While you get to shape that character to a degree, you
don't get to invent entirely new skills (e.g. dual wield) which weren't part of
his potential training path, nor do you get to shape-shift from a
high-endurance, but low-skill to a low-endurance but high-skill at random! (Ok
all of these can be argued as possible through side traininng - but are
certainly not "by the spirit of the book")Given they are not by-the-book, I
tend to agree they don't justify extensive clarifications. MAYBE a simple
footnote to suggest you should continue with the statistics you used
previously? I don't think I like that idea though as I'm sure it would grow
over time!
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:38:15 +0100
> From: outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum
>
> On 11/05/2012 00:57, Jonathan Blake wrote:
> > Is it just me or is there just too much going on with this. It seems
> > like a simple change from "can" to "should" does not give enough
> > information to help the reader make an informed choice. It's beginning
> > to seem like this would be best handled by an extended explanation in
> > the Readers' Handbook?
>
> If I roll a 5 and a 5 for EP and CS in Book 1, I don't then re-roll my
> stats at the start of Book 2 in the hope of picking better numbers
> simply because "some of the opponents might be harder". And if I did and
> picked a 9 and a 9, should I then re-pick the numbers at the start of
> Book 3? Or now that I'm satisfied, is it time to stick with what I've
> got? I can't see how the transition from Magnakai to Grand Master is any
> different. To my mind, "should" is the correct word here; and if players
> want to do otherwise, they can, but such rules-meistering is not "by the
> book". (Compare the fact that we haven't included any "dual-wielding"
> rules in the RH because they are not in the original rules, irrespective
> of how vocally and passionately some argue that 'carrying two Weapons
> makes dual-wielding an implicit rule'.)
>
> But I'm still feeling grumpy and crotchety right now. :-p
>
> --
> Simon Osborne
> Project Aon
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
Other related posts:
