Re: [HoE] Hucksters in HoE

["The Rusty" <therusty@vallnet.com>]

You know, it seems to me that IF any hucksters made it all the way to the
Wasted West, then their skill level should be , I dunno, 10-15.  That would
represent their "Craftyness" and their superior skill, and you could STILL
use the +4 backlash.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>
To: <hoe@gamerz.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [HoE] Hucksters in HoE


> >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
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> unsubscribe hoe
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>