My actual ideas can only be expressed in theoretical terms and I apologise in advance if this gets difficult to follow or seems inappropriate to this forum.
My thoughts are mainly concerned with these two:
These would certainly change the game, in HW they encouraged extended contests, relegating simple contests to a narrow group of conflicts, those that were interesting enough to roll for but not enough to explore in detail. I don't think it had a serious effect on how we saw conflict, or how we viewed augmenting; instead the effect was on how we chose the type of contest required.
Allowing multiple augments on simple contests allowed them to be explored in their own right, increasing the narration surrounding what was happening and thereby allowing greater exploration of the contest. But, this exploration is less structured and governed by mechanical guidelines, leading to divergent play across and even within groups and a proliferation of house rules to impose set interpretations on the contest.
Also, the rules for Extended Contests became less clear because in HW there were sequence rules for augments and a distinction between those abilities that took time and those that did not. In HQ the augment rules came into line with the new Simple Contest augment rules, leading to contests being front loaded with augments instead of using them to systematically explore each round.
I tend to look to the rules to guide me when there is a difference of opinion on their application. HW had a clear rules-led emphasis on the different contests; HQ blurred the distinctions and led to divergent interpretation.
I would like to see a clearer distinction between the contests, and perhaps rules on how they use augments may help this.
Looking at the rest of my list I would highlight these two:
These had an effect on the way that contests were explored, I don't care when players use HPs or tactics as long as they have a meaningful effect in the game. This means that their mechanical use and effect should be clearly reflected in the exploration. So, these are both neutral to good on my value scale: here players actively explore the contest by emphasising aspects of their character by usage of supporting rules.
These are "points-of–contact" between the rules and the exploration.
This is why I don't really like squeezing in multiple augments, it provides low points-of-contact between the rules and the exploration, and in this case, leading to a divergent interpretation of the "how and why" of augments, because the different view-points are not synthesised within the rules.
-- Jamie
Powered by hypermail