a discussion came up on the DW Tavern G+ community, and I posed a kneejerk response to it. I don't like Herculean Appetites as written:
"Others may content themselves with just a taste of wine, or dominion over a servant or two, but you want more. Choose two appetites. While pursuing one of your appetites, if you would roll for a move, instead of rolling 2d6 you roll 1d6+1d8. If the d6 is the higher die of the pair, the GM will also introduce a complication or danger that comes about due to your heedless pursuits."
My knee-jerk was to add in a second +Wis roll, but as mentioned in the thread, it (rightly) feels like punishment. Not that I don't think it shouldn't feel like punishment, I just think there's a different way to go about it that maybe feels less like punishment.
I have since sparked on a different idea. I would change the text I italicized in the quote to "when a chance to indulge your appetites presents itself , if you would roll for a move, take -Worst Mental Attribute." If you fail, the GM will introduce a complication or danger, etc, in addition to whatever complications normally arise from failure.
That is, if you are being tempted, your mind is in some way negatively influenced by the temptation. Why the worst? because some players may want to try to game the system and not get penalized for their inconvenient appetites. Physical players are most likely going to try to choose their top 3 attributes in STR, DEX, or CON, but if they try to swap one out for a mental attribute, the fact that at least one of the others will be negative, will provide a penalty. The underlying assumption is that the distraction either makes you forget things, or not pay attention, or become crabby.
As with the original, the penalty only presents itself in a fairly narrow circumstance, so I don't really think it's unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment