> I think it also reflected a simulationist approach. Of course a
> Strong character should have a bonus, compared to a normal character.
> And a brave character, compared to a normal one. And one fighting for
> his clan. And one with good gear. And... Whereas in fictional
> sources, characters usually mix up their augments to keep the text
> from getting boring. Or another way to look at it: by using only one
> ability at a time to augment, HQ2 lets the augmenting ability make a
> difference, rather than getting lost in a crowd.
There is an obvious trade off between having too few augments (if each augment is adding +1/+2 then you may need several to make a difference) and too many (if you are adding +30 or more to every roll then it sounds like the whole scale is out) - and yes, if every contest is augmented with the same set of augments then things are in danger of becoming boring. But there is a difference between a character in a story using different augments each time and a character in a game. In a story, you are starting with the outcome, and then narrating the events leading up to it, so it doesn't make any difference to the outcome of the fight if I am described as fighting bravely, or craftily, or striking mighty blows sundering my opponents armour, or precise blows bypassing it. In a game however, the result isn't known until after the dice are thrown. If I want to win the contest (and even though failure can be interesting and illuminating I'm still going to prefer to win most of the contests...) then I'm going to want to use the Augment(s) that give me the best chance of doing so, even if they are the same ones I used last time...
Powered by hypermail