Re: Magical Augments - A little extreme?

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:58:37 +0100

Jim Chapin writes:
> It's a sign of badly written rules that such a basic rules matter can be
> argued at such length.


Roderick and Ellen Robertson replies:
> The rules are clear. HW 133: "Abilities may be augmented...
> only once per feat, but can be increased by several different
> feats." No mention of Affinities. Had we meant "once per affinity", we
> would have written "once per affinity".
> The arguments come from people that don't like multiple augments per
> affinity. "Not liking" isn't the same thing as "Badly Written Rule" or "Bad
> Rule".


Yes indeed. I've seen several assertions, in these threads about augmentations, that the HW augmentation rules are broken. The fact is, our group has been playing every week for two years using the augmentation rules with no problems. I can't help thinking that some of the complainers have simply not given the rules a chance, and instead are diving in change them. This seems a recurring theme on this list. I maintain that, despite appearances, the rules work much better than a newcomer (especially someone entrenched in RQ thinking) might think. There are some problems, of course, and I've been vocal in criticizing them. I strongly advise using the rules as written for sometime BEFORE creating house rules.

I suggest David re-examines Wesley's original message. Wesley's complaint is *not* that allowing multiple augments from an affinity is a problem. The various limits on using affinities for augmentation suggested by people are therefore wrong headed. Wesley's *concern* is that allowing multiple augments before the contest begins *might* be a problem for game balance. Nick Brooks also points out that this can lead to boring game play.

Now, Wesley and his group have being playing much longer than almost any other. I think it is significant that Wesley is NOT complaining that multiple augments from an affinity are a problem. Perhaps this is because, in his considerable experience, they are not a problem?

So Dave et al, do any of you have any suggestions that actually tackle Wesley's concern? IIRC, so far the only suggestions that tackle this concern are various suggestions to limit the number of pre contest augmentations (three being a popular number, suggested by Roderick), and my suggestion that the scope of the extended contest be expanded to include the preparation.

Powered by hypermail