> > In the two games of it I played (at Tentacles and Continuum, both
> > last year), I found that the "freshness" requirement was
> > sufficiently
> > distracting from the story that it was at least as bad - and
> > probably
> > worse - than the old hunt for augments. Which made it harder to
> > judge
> > how the one-augment-only rule would have felt as the only change.
>
> A convention game would be a single session with a character nobody
> knew
> anything about, so I'd guess almost everything would be fresh. Can
> you be more specific?
I suppose it's possible that the GMs were both misinterpreting the intent or meaning of the rules - but given that one was Dave Dunham and the other was Ian Cooper, I find this unlikely. But, anyway, what would happen was that I would try to do something, use an appropriate augment and be told "you can't do that - you used that same augment for that same ability last time, so it's not fresh." (Last time being earlier in the same session, obviously).
> When I've been narrating, from HW through to HQ1.5, I've tried to
> have
> descriptions first, numbers second. I don't like "I use by Warrior
> Keyword" as an answer to the question "How do you fight the Lunar
> soldiers?". Perhaps the new rules are trying to do something similar
> for augments?
I imagine that's the idea, yes.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail