Re: [HoE] Hucksters in HoE

[Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>I have read this thread, and it seems strange that no one questions your
>assumption that hucksters grew at the same rate at the manitou. Why

Actually, several people have questioned it, and the rule alteration to Vet 
Hucksters implies that my assumption isn't valid.

>should they? It wasn't like the hucksters were suddenly getting all this
>extra power from some super hucksters (like the manitou are from the
>reckoners). I think at the very least the +4 backlash should remain, Or,

Most of the rationale presented by others here, is not that the manitous are 
"more powerful" per se as a rationale for the +4 backlash, but that they are 
"craftier" and thus more able to screw over any Huckster.

I agree that the backlash increase doesn't come from power but from 
craftiness.  But then the question remains:  shouldn't a Huckster who has 
had 200+ years to become "craftier" himself, and (as I noted earlier) may 
have dealt with as many as 73,000 manitous (one Hex per day, for 200 years - 
he can sit around and cast Gamblers' Luck once a day for chips if nothing 
else), shouldn't in some way progress in craftiness as well?

>if you would like to keep it to the rationale that someone else
>provided, that with higher fear levels, the manitou gain more power, add
>the fear level to the backlash roll. Thus, in normal Deadlands-esque
>areas, low fear levels, the hucksters have learnt along with the
>manitou, but in the areas where the manitou got a shot of steroids (high
>fear level areas) the huckster is simply outclassed.
>

I'm not sure that your run-of-the-mill manitou in high-FL areas _is_ 
craftier.  Nothing in the Harrowed rules reflects that, although I'll grant 
that the upcoming Cyborg rules may change that.

>It is almost as if everyone that loves their hucksters doesn't want to
>deal with the fact that will be even worse off in HoE than they are in
>DL, and so come up with ways to rationalise removing penalties that I
>think have am in-game related cause.
>

As a Marshall I have no interest one way or another as far as "loving" my 
Huckster, since I have no such character.  I want the rules to remain as 
simple as possible.  Right now, and as I noted earlier, you can read the 
Arcane Background: Huckster rules in TJC, and conclude that they shouldn't 
even _apply_ to non-Junker Huckster types.  The limits noted there seem to 
apply to Science-Hucksters:  Vet Hucksters don't (normally) fit into this 
category.  Nor is there anything that states that vet-Hucksters must learn 
science to remain playable characters.  The disads of Huckstering are stated 
_only_ in relation to Junker-Hucksters.

The three-tiered system John proposed is needlessly complex from a rules 
standpoint.

And quite frankly, I'm not really convinced that one sourcebook, and one 
that doesn't (to a casual knowledge of the game) relate to the Huckster 
concept, is the best place to put such a change anyway.  If anything, I 
would look for such a codification in the Syker book, since it is there that 
it talks about the "fading out" of Hucksters over the last 200 years.

Thus, since many of the folks using vet-Hucksters may very will not have and 
be using the TJC rules in the first place, again, it makes sense (from a 
rules, not a "I love my no-existent Huckster PC" standpoint) to do something 
to make sure that those will be played consistently with those who _do_ have 
the TJC rules.  And those that have the TJC rules and come to the conclusion 
that the paragraphs on Huckster-Junkers simply have no bearing on Vet 
Hucksters.

You certainly can rationalize an in-game cause for the +4 backlash:  it's an 
essentially fictional science and you can rationalize it any way you want.  
You can just as easily rationalize an in-game system (and myself and several 
people have) as to why the Vet Huckster does _not_ receive a backlash 
penalty.  No one rationale is "better" than another, except Pinnacle's.

>Have you ever tried to keep right on the cutting edge of some field, I
>think it would be impossible, and eventually you would get overwhelmed.
>

As others have noted, there is no "cutting edge."  Huckstering in 2094 is 
essentially the same as in 1876.  The only two things that have changed that 
seems relative to backlash is that:  A) Manitous have been around and active 
longer and thus are craftier, and B) Those few Hucksters that have survived 
their Vet of the Weird West handicap and remained active have been around 
and active longer and thus are craftier.

Every rationale that argues for the +4 Backlash seems to only pay attention 
to A and ignore B.

>Still thats only what I think, so if you want to remove and hindrances,
>do so.
>

As a Marshall, my concern is for a consistent game system.  That's the 
reason I buy the books.  I'd like to know that if I go to a convention and 
run an event with people providing their own characters (I tend to allow 
this - your mileage may vary), both I and the person who designed a Vet 
Huckster (and they're a fun character to run...or at least were) have a 
common understanding of how their characters work.

No offense to Mr. Hopler, but the way the TJC is worded, and by framing the 
new Huckster disadvantages _only_ in terms of Junker-Hucksters, the waters 
are already somewhat muddied, IMO.

>- michael


---

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