> 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.
There is no actual value, only perceived. Due to a host of narrator and player tricks, that "5w" on your sheet can just as well be "0" or "5w2". The number of HP put into an ability does not correspond to how useful that ability is in play. The HP you put into an "Honor" affinity might never be used, or might be used every session. The fact that the Honor affinity has an "18" means absolutely nothing until the affinity needs to be used.
> 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.
There *is* no consistancy to the value of an HP, in theory or practice. It could be the difference between Life or Death; or Complete vrs Minor Victory; or a +12, +1, +1/3, or +1/5 (not to mention the doubled values for "out of play", or the pyramidal costs for jumping ability ratings) to an ability. The players should not be worried about the RoI of their HP. Yes, they might decide to place them all on one affinity because of a perceived "cheat", but so what? There is no one ability or affinity that beats all others, or augments all others, so an unbalanced character only ultimately hurts the player.
When I was working with Greg to establish the HP values for advancement, we didn't bother with "play balance". A Grimoire cost 5 HP per +1 because Greg said "It's harder for a Gloranthan to learn". *Not* because Grimoires are more useful than Affinities, or because they are that much more powerful than mundane abilities.
>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)
Getting the most out of your abilities (*NOT* HP) should be on everyone's mind. A player should always be looking for augments, and trying to talk his narrator into accepting them. As narrator, you have the right of Veto or of "Yes, but...". Whether those augments come from a single affinity or a slew of them doesn't matter.
Re: Augment Wars - What is the difference between getting three augments from three affinities, and three augments from one affinity? Where those augments come from is immaterial, it's still three augments, and thus a possible "skewing" of your narrative and playing of "Augment Wars".
> 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.
Anyone that lets his opponent get "a couple extra augments" deserves what he gets. Sometimes it is unavoidable (per the "Ambushs should hurt" thread), but if you are facing an opponent who keeps augmenting and "getting ahead of you", you are either outclassed anyway or rolling badly (and no amount of rules will prevent it). He won't be making any AP bids, so the initiative stands with you. You can augment yourself, or attack, or run away. Letting him "power up" and then hit you is just asking for it.
And what about the fellow who puts a pile of HP into Close Combat and then gets enthralled by the Queen of the Buss? Or made insane by a lunar Madness feat? or blown into the ocean by a Orlanthi's "Call Wind". Shouldn't he be pissed too? Getting mad at the rules because you make a bad strategic decision gets little sympathy from me.
> 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.
Perhaps you are looking for the wrong thing in the rules.
HW/HQ is easily min-maxed, even before allocating HP. You might decide to play a Stickpicker while I decide to play the son of the tribal king. Or I choose exotic abilities like Death Glance or Fly as my mastered skills. There is no intention for real play balance at the player level. "Play Balance" is what the narrator does when he chooses or sets the ability ratings of the opponents.
RR
Powered by hypermail