>>I do like the new extended contests for the most part. I'm tempted to
>>find a way to work the bidding back in, because I did like that
>>aspect, but doing it in a way that doesn't break the new system seems
>>difficult.
>While I think you could choose to use bidding instead of the new
>extended contests, and there's plenty of guidance as to whether to
>use a simple or extended contest, there was never any obvious way to
>choose between the two extended contest types, which is a major
>reason we went with just one.
*nod*
Makes perfect sense. And, to be honest, I think you guys picked the
right one to go with as a default.
I'll have to play the new one out some to see if I really miss the
bidding, because I liked it but then I never ran huge amounts of
extended contests so it may not really be missed in actual play.
>>1) No longer is there a back and forth of who acts.
>
>In practice, our group tends to take turns describing who acts. That
>is, in a combat the player describes how his character charges.
>Everyone rolls. Then the narrator describes how the monster bellows a
>terrifying roar. Everyone rolls.
*nod*
I just found it interesting that the text in HQ 1 explicitly described
things this way and the text in HQ2 describes it with only the players
choosing actions.
I suspect, as you say, it will come down to social contract at the
table, and the system certainly seems to work perfectly well either way.
>>2) No tacitcal augment shifting.
>
>That would be mechanically bad, as you would essentially be able to
>reroll a failed augment attempt.
Given the new way augments are structured, it absolutely would not work
to put it back in, I agree.
Also, as I noted in the other thread, to some degree this is countered
by the greater use of lingering benefits.
>To some extend hero point usage may do what you want -- an easy way
>to describe it is as if you were augmenting with a new ability.
I noticed that the examples used this. I'm also inclined to simply be
generous in my interpretation of ability shifts within contests and what
is or is not a stretch.
If you suddenly want to describe how your blinding speed is what you are
using to get an advantage this round, while still being in the same
contest, I'm likely to just let you switch stats and not even call it a
stretch, as per the "Flashing Cutlass" example.
>3) Limited ability to help.
>
>FWIW, our group found the assist rules made it EASIER to help in
>someone else's fight.
That's interesting. I suspect this is as much a case of "I knew how to adjudicate it the old way, so I am seeing the limits" here. There do still seem to be ways to help, and some previous augments can be modeled by situational bonuses as well. I forgot the "use an unengaged action to take out a follower" one as a way to help, too.
<disengage>
>>I assume that is separate from any multiple opponent issues that may
>>apply. (So if you are the first person to go and you try to disengage
>>there is a minus 5, but if you let your two friends attack first to
>>keep the guy off balance, there is a -11)
>
>That's how I read it.
*nod* It seems the only reading that makes sense.
>>I am also surprised at how much I think I like the new Gloranthan
>>magic rules, which I was fully prepared to viscerally dislike from the
>>snippets I heard.
>
>I was prepared to as well, since I had never before seen a rune-based
>system I liked.
Having not seen one before, I can't comment on that. All I wanted was one that was flexible enough to allow for mixed worship to work smoothly and for religions to not have to feel like they are "This world or that world" to be at all effective. This one feels like I can do Theists who have spirits as a common part of their religion fairly easily and I can do far more pantheon/religion level work than the former "shove you in a cult and that's your only option" approach the previous way often felt like mechanically (even if the intent was never to do that).
I do want to see each expanded somewhat, the shift in how spirits work from common charms to practice spirits was a bit unclear to me, for instance, but the general principle of rising active use and a more generous interpretation of "credible" as the basis works for me.
LC
Powered by hypermail