> From: "Jeff" <jeff.kyer_at_...>
> > I only realised during the gameplay that augmentation is an
> > extremely risky business. When you try to augment then there
> > is rarely an occaision when _nothing_ happens - you either
> > gain or lose. Is this intentional. I'd have thought that there
>
> Yep. Its intentional.
I just love these "it's broken by design" explanations (that don't explain anything.)
> > would be more occaisions when there was no effect. That
> > _could_ be achieved by making marginal/minor results a 'no effect',
> > major results in gaining/losing the augmentation and complete
> > results in double values.
>
> There's been a lot of debate on this in the past but you have to admit
> it cuts down on useless die-rolls!
I don't see how. You mean if your augmenting ability is so low it's not worth the trouble to try?
> > Less often a success but less often a failure too...
>
> Ah, but why roll dice if you don't mean it? HW is much more magical
> than RuneQuest, I find. And didn't you just hate rolling to see if
> your Battle Magic spells worked and rolling and rolling and rolling?
> =(
Rather less so than rolling and rolling my Feats and finding them working backwards, actually. Being forced to go for ultra-conservative augments feels neither "magical" nor "heroic" to me. (One of the basic problems is that you stand to "lose" the same thing as you're trying to
"gain", so there's no real sense of meaningful trade-off, or "sacrificing everything for victory", etc. (Hence the logic of the "penalise the augmenting ability" suggestion.))> >
> > Just wanted to see what people think of augmenting etc...
I don't see how the augment rules in any way discourages playing such games. If anything, one might say it just makes the probabilities sillier. (I might post my analysis of "optimal" augmentation targets and expected augmentation benefits, just to see RR wince. <g>)
Powered by hypermail