Re: RE: [HoE] Junkman Cometh/Huckster ?

[Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

> > Then what's the balance to the disadvantages provided?  Again, you're
> > talking "real-world" (well, real HOE world) logic, rather than "game 
>logic."
> >   Why is a HoE Huckster paying the same three points for the AB that a
> > Deadlands Huckster is?
>
>Because it's still an Arcane Background, presumably.  TJC
>makes it pretty clear that huckstering is a losing
>proposition in HoE.  If a player doesn't want that, they
>shouldn't take the AB; if they want to play a huckster
>regardless of the drawbacks, they can.


Pinnacle has already demonstrated that Arcane Backgrounds needn't 
automatically have a 3 Cost (Initiate, Greenie).  Rather, that the costs can 
be modified to represent the strengths and weaknesses of a particular 
background.

But again, we seem to keep coming back to the point that TJC _does_ make 
Huckstering a losing proposition.  Which is exactly my point.  If it's a 
losing proposition, why includes rules, or a new (or modified from an old) 
background for it?  Nobody I know of would contend that Doomsayers, or 
Sykers, or Templars, are a "losing proposition."


>Hucksters are unreliable at best, but they're as mean
>in HoE as they are in Deadlands.  With improved tech like
>SMGs and assault rifles, Soul Blast isn't as effective as
>it was - the guns hurt more and more reliably than hexes.
>Hexes have the edge on guns in hurting supernatural
>critters and are more useful all around than the HoE arcane
>backgrounds, which are more combat oriented.
>


How are they are mean as they were before?  They die/handicap 
themselves/screw over their comrades more readily,  They lose the benefits, 
however slim, of many minimum-rank Hexes their Deadlands comrades had access 
to.  Don't know about you, but if my choice is between making my opponent 
losing 3 Bullets, and making them lose 0 Bullets, I'd take 3.

I'm also not convinced that Syker and Doomsayer stuff is _that_ 
combat-oriented.  There's a fair number of useful non-combat stuff in both 
of those...

> > If game balance is no longer an issue, and we don't care
>if Hucksters are
> > balanced (or even playable), then great.
>
>I'd argue hucksters are still playable - backlash is just a
>more risky outcome than before.
>
>


The only way to accurately measure if players think they are playable would 
be to survey folks and determine if they'd play "normal" Hucksters (i.e., 
ones that are concerned about surviving) in HoE under the new rules.  
Everyone, raise your hands...  :)

Although I still have concerns about other PCs letting the Huckster stick 
around, since the Huckster in their midst just became more deadly to them.  
It's hard to imagine hardened post-Apocalyptic types would really put up 
with this...  ;)  Attitude problems, as Steve notes later, are one thing.  
Power problems are another.

In any case, and skimming over the rest of your post, I'm still not sure how 
even if the hexes have become more powerful using your limited measurement 
(which apparently involves ignoring all the new "no effects even if the Hex 
was successfuly cast" results, ranging from Ace-minimum stuff like Soul 
Blast up to stuff like Gambler's Luck that has a Jacks-minimum).

Basically, the HoE Huckster gains no benefits from the minimum hex level 
being raised.  Game balance, as Mr. Wallace later noted, is indeed iffy.  
But I don't see how screwing over Hucksters further over the problems they 
have in their original incarnation somehow makes up for Sykers and 
Doomsayers being unbalanced the other way.

While it is certainly TJC's assertion that Hucksters haven't evolved over 
200 years, it is my contention that that assertion (and the new AB rules 
stemming from it) _is_ flawed.  It's flawed from theory ic. If you were a 
200 year old Huckster, coming up against more and more powerful Hucksters, 
you'd make no effort whatsoever to upgrade your own methods or improve your 
paradigm, but just put up with the increased chance of backlash and the more 
unpleasant effects of backlash??), and it's flawed from theory oc because 
the result is (IMO) an unplayable (yes, that's the word I'm using, whoever 
asked earlier) character class.


>>(And just as a note, even assuming that the Huckster player is feeling
> > doom-ish, why would a Posse want him around, giving the penchant of 
>backlash
> > to hit comrades as well?  Don't know about you, but most Posses I've 
>seen
> > just barely tolerate a Huckster's backlashes:  I can't imagine a HoE 
>group
> > would be any more forgiving of the increased chance of one of them 
>getting
> > nailed.)
>
>Why would a Posse hang around with a Doomsayer?  Sure, they
>can hurt people real well, but they think norms are doomed.
>If they heal you, you mutate - that's not something most
>folk want.

Umm, who cares whether they think you're doomed if they're willing to heal 
you?  We're not talking about a Huckster's "attitude," we're talking about 
the effects of the use of the powers which is predominantly the reason you 
want them in the group.  Also, the chance of you mutating is not as 
automatic as you make it sound above.  It occurs in the case of critical or 
near-critical wounds, does it not?  I don't know of anyone who wants to die 
rather than be mutated.  However, it would make an interesting 
prejudice/hindrance/whatever.

>Templars are just as bad.  If they don't think someone's
>worth saving, they're off without a look back.  Hardly the
>kind of person you want to trust with your life, is it?
>What if they figure you're not worth saving and leave you
>to your fate?

Again not relating to the exercise of their powers.

>Law Dogs?  If there's trouble, they want to sort it out and
>they're not afraid to step on peoples toes if they have to.
>That spells trouble for them and their friends.

Again, not relating to the exercise of their powers (or lack thereof).

>Junkers?  Poking around and messing with the stuff that
>ruined the world in the first place.  Would you stick
>around and see what they can blow up this time?

Sure - could be fun, since most of the stuff is inward directed.  :)  
However, yes, if the benefits outweigh the harms.  In the case of Junkers, 
it seems they do.  Thus the label "playable."  In the case of Huckster, no 
it isn't.  Thus the label "unplayable."

>How about Sykers?  Crazy war vets who have murdered their
>way around Faraway and risk blowing their heads off every
>time they use a power?  Kind of people sensible folk would
>associate with?  I don't think so...
>

Again, do benefits outweigh harms?  In the case of Sykers, yes, since their 
powers A) very rarely "backlash" compared to Hucksters; and B) don't 
necessarily affect their comrades when they do.

Overall, interesting, but the comparison fails because you're comparing 
attitude-type problems for the most part with power-type problems.

A Huckster could very well have all the potential attitude type problems of 
a Doomsayer, or Law Dog, or Templar (I think a Huckster would be pretty 
choosy about who he helps, given the increased backlash), and above that 
_also_ has a chance of inadvertently blasting his own comrades by the use of 
his powers that make him most desirable to have in the party.  I'm not aware 
that a Templar has a chance of doing so by using his powers.

You ran the numbers for the chances of Doomsayer/Syker backlash vs. Huckster 
backlash.  I'd be glad to read them back to you, but as I've asserted, the 
Hucksters' chances are so much greater that they do justify the "unplayable" 
level I've noted for the newest TJC rules.

Interestingly, the one thing you left off your list is Harrowed.  In that 
case, you might get into something similar and I might agree with you.  But 
we were discussing (well, I was discussing) the ability of powers to 
backlash and take out comrades.  Basically, as far as I can tell and other 
folks I have talked to that I game with feel, the risks of Huckster backlash 
far outweigh those of Doomsayer, or Syker backlash.  Harrowed "backlash" 
well...maybe, although from what I've seen, as long as a Harrowed is willing 
to spend the chips and the Marshall doesn't get too lucky, and with the 
restrictions of the manitous within to remain fairly subtle, the risk A) 
falls within the playable range, and B) is still less than that of the new 
AB: Huckster modifiers.


---

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