Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>In a message dated 7/31/99 11:21:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>rymoore@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > So let me get his straight you would FORCE a player to use the 
>anti-templar
> >  powers because YOU BELEIVE all anti-templars MUST turn out bad.  (IMHO)
> >  Being heavy handed with the players never works.
>
>No more so than FORCING a player to make a fear check because I BELIEVE
>the player should be scared. :)
>

But if a player _could_ run his character appropriately and simulate the 
effects of fear (maybe even to the point of saying, "Boy, that's terrifying, 
Mr. Marshall, and my character really feels it - can you give me a 
anti-heart attack check?") would you force them to make a Fear Check?

I think that arguement is a bit of a red herring, though, since there are 
variable levels of effect (i.e., different Terror Check TNs), different 
modifiers (i.e., local Fear Level), and effects (i.e., the various levels of 
the Scart Table).  I don't view Fear Checks as a way to _force_ the 
character to do something the player wouldn't do (heck, the rulebooks say 
veteran characters shouldn't have to make checks anyway, although it's a bit 
vague about it), as a way to factor all in the various factors.

By comparison, Corruption is a simple either/or.  Either you use Power X and 
get X points, or you don't, and you don't.

>I'm just saying MY take on ATs is they are the dark jedi of HOE. No matter 
>how
>good their intentions will be, INEVITABLY they will go to the dark side. If
>someone
>wants to play a doomed character that's one thing, but they should 
>understand
>that the clock is ticking and its only a matter of time. Requiring a
>"temptation check"
>if you will is just my equivalent of an appropriate will, fear, or whatever
>roll that
>the game mechanics use to reflect things the players don't, won't or can't.
>

But then it's not "temptation."  There's nothing, IMO, in the Temp SB that 
says each and every ATs _must_ become evil Servitors.  The non-narrative 
statements (not the rules themselves) stress that, and the narrative (told 
from a rather fanatical Templar's point of view) stress that.  But if 
Pinnacle _wanted_ such Temptation rules, it seems that they would have put 
in such rules.  They kinda went both ways (we'll say they're evil, but not 
actually provide rules to make them inevitably evil), so certainly a 
Marshall could choose either path.

It just seems silly to use a mechanic to simulate temptation when you can, 
and should, provide temptations.  My "problem" (if you want to call it that) 
isn't that the player don't want to deal with Fear at all:  it's that they 
don't have an accurate idea of all the variables involved to do it.  With 
Corruption, it is a system that the players and Marshall can work with to 
simultae a die roll.

>Andrew Ross (draxus@aol.com)
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe hoe
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com