[RPM] Questions

Zarmonic · 08-10-2016, 03:16 AM

Resistance with HT vs Will:

The book just broadly states that "every potential subject who is not a willing participant resists with a Quick Contest using the better of his HT or Will"

Does this really make sense considering most spells are either mental or physical in their effects? I just had a player take considerable issue with this and, when it comes right down to it, I kind of agree with him. Is there anything I'm missing if I rule that mental spells are resisted by Will and physical spells are resisted by HT?

Quick and Dirty

I think the whole idea of a process like Quick and Dirty Charms is a very good one. I'm thinking of using it not just for charms but any "big" spell that would mean a lot of die rolls to accumulate energy.

The real problem that I have with it is that it's hard to teach players. That's because it's so counter intuitive. For the first roll, the pluses are essentially negatives...ok...but then for the 2nd roll it's reversed.

I understand that it's a method to simulate odds but I don't really get why something more simple and game friendly couldn't be thought up. Any explanation or thoughts are welcome!

08-10-2016, 03:16 AM	#19
Zarmonic Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Seattle, WA	Re: [RPM] Questions Resistance with HT vs Will: The book just broadly states that "every potential subject who is not a willing participant resists with a Quick Contest using the better of his HT or Will" Does this really make sense considering most spells are either mental or physical in their effects? I just had a player take considerable issue with this and, when it comes right down to it, I kind of agree with him. Is there anything I'm missing if I rule that mental spells are resisted by Will and physical spells are resisted by HT? Quick and Dirty I think the whole idea of a process like Quick and Dirty Charms is a very good one. I'm thinking of using it not just for charms but any "big" spell that would mean a lot of die rolls to accumulate energy. The real problem that I have with it is that it's hard to teach players. That's because it's so counter intuitive. For the first roll, the pluses are essentially negatives...ok...but then for the 2nd roll it's reversed. I understand that it's a method to simulate odds but I don't really get why something more simple and game friendly couldn't be thought up. Any explanation or thoughts are welcome!