Re: Re: Magical Augments - A little extreme?

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:32:28 +0800


At 12:11 PM -0700 11/4/02, Roderick and Ellen Robertson scribbled:
> > >At these levels the magic is becoming more important than the mundane
>> >skill, given the number of HP spent (or heroquests performed) to have
>> >access to that magic I don't happen to think that this is unbalancing.
>>
>> The problem is that the result is out of line from the number
>> of HPs spent - in particular, it depends as much as rounds of
>> preparation.
>> I want the value of an ability to be based on the level of an
>> ability. Is that so shocking?
>
>Okay, I know I said I was through, but that was with Ambushing (backpedaling
>and spin-doctoring furiously).
>
>I think this is the crux of your (David) complaint, yes? That perceived
>value should equate to amount of HP put into the ability?

        No - perceived value should vary wildly according to your narrative, its actual value I want to equate to the amount of HP put into the ability. That way, perceived value is under the control of my narrative, but the basic game mechanics remain consistent.

>Allowing multiple augments from the same affinity doesn't "cheapen" other
>player's HP expenditure, as they have the same opportunities in their HP
>spending.

	The problem is that
	1) consistency of value of a HP goes out the window, even in 
theory. You end up with weird inconsistencies - like increasing your ability is not actually the best way to increase your effective ability, you really should be spending on a feat for a different affinity. Its cheating my players - the meaning of the numbers on their character sheet is undermined.

        2) relative value of abilities becomes dependent on factors that are essentially at odds with my control as narrator. Basically, if the magical augment technique becomes such a dominant factor in determining contests, my narrative is, of necessity, skewed in that direction. I have no urge to play Augment Wars.

        (yes, I can do the cop out of 'its ok in theory, but in practice as narrator I won't let it happen', but thats just admitting the problem exists then refusing to solve it)

> It doesn't even cheapen the value of other skills to the same
>character. A person that puts all points into one affinity will have serious
>deficiencies in other affinities and/or abilities, and when the time comes
>that a character's "Honor" affinity is more important than his "Kill
>Everything Dead Dead Dead" affinity, he'll have difficulty performing his
>religious duties.

        This is beside the point - its an excellent argument for not putting all your points into close combat as well. Balanced characters are a good idea, even though the rules don't (and shouldn't) tell you how to spend your HPs. But it DOES cheapen the effects of other skills - anyone who puts a pile of points into close combat, and gets wasted due to a couple of extra augments, has a right to feel rather cross. Hell, exploiting loopholes gives you MORE points to spend on making balanced characters, not less.

        In other words, your point is correct but not really addressing mine.

>
>Allowing multiple augments is just part of the "Yes But" mentality that I
>try to encourage. Using multiple "Sword Combat" feats means diddly when you
>are targeted with offensive magic, ranged combat, or the smile of the
>heroine's "Entrance Male 18w4" augmented by "Magically Beautiful 7w3" and
>"Friendly 13w3". Sure, you may have 120 AP, but when she hits you with her
>smile and you don't have anything better than the "Default 6" to defend
>with, you can kiss them goodby in a turn or two.

        Broken record time - good narration, still bad rules. I can greatly reduce the effect of bad rules on my game easily, but the game is still worse for it.

	Cheers
		David

Powered by hypermail