- ... That s certainly the way I think they _ought_ to work; and it may in fact be the intent (or not; you ll have to ask Lenny to be sure). But, as written:Message 1 of 38 , Mar 4 8:16 AMView SourceOn Mar 3, 2013, at 10:53 PM, PK Levine <pkitty@...> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 03, 2013 11:49:29 pm Jonathan Lang wrote:That's certainly the way I think they _ought_ to work; and it may in fact be the intent (or not; you'll have to ask Lenny to be sure). But, as written:
>> That reminds me: a house rule to consider regarding Boosts would be that
>> they're good for one active use (either an Invoke or a Compel), as opposed
>> to one Invoke and an unlimited number of Compels.
> Wait, they're good for an unlimited number of compels? I thought that boosts,
> by definition, went away as soon as they were used.
"Boosts are a super-transient kind of aspect, identical to a scene aspect in every way except one: they go away completely after being invoked once."
Not "used once" or "invoked or compelled once"; "invoked once". To be fair, a case could be made that the wording was written under the assumption that a Boost is usually going to be Invoked; that's its intended purpose.
- ... Yep; which is a big part of why I m comfortable with no, but being a possible Tie result: it *is* splitting hairs, as yes, but and no, but are aMessage 38 of 38 , Mar 13 10:07 AMView SourceOn Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Leonard Balsera <lbalsera@...> wrote:On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jon Lang <dataweaver@...> wrote:One of our rolls is going to have to be a "no" of some sort; but it can be a compensated no, where that person doesn't get what he was after but does get something useful.Sure, I feel you, but it's sort of splitting hairs at that point.Yep; which is a big part of why I'm comfortable with "no, but" being a possible Tie result: it is splitting hairs, as "yes, but" and "no, but" are a hair's breadth apart from each other, and it's largely a matter of perspective as to which is which.--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang