First, I reject the general argument that because the narrator can always force it to be a non-problem, its a non-problem. The narrator can always force any bad rules to be a non-problem if they try hard enough. Arguments that amount to 'I can overrule the rules or make them irrelevant, so the rules don't matter' are silly - if we really believed that, why would we be on list for discussing them? Sure, narrative can make any advantage moot. But that's no argument that rules problems should be studiously ignored.
> > 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.
You appear to, once again, be saying that 'in practice, anything can happen at narrator whim, so who cares if the rules are consistent?'. I say, if we have rules, they should work, and we shouldn't have to work around their idiosyncracies.
>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.
Actually, Grimoires are moderately less useful, and the 'hard for Gloranthan to learn' part should be an element of narrative. Now I hear that justification, its clearly simulationism where it should be narrative - making rules that attempt to force elements of game world detail onto narrative.
I am afraid you have actually convinced me far more that Grimoires are overpriced now I know the reasoning!
I can't think of, off-hand, several ways to much better represent the same effect, but keeping it within the narrative area not the rules per se. Requiring sorcerers to spend significant percentages of their time in order to increase Grimoires, for example. Requiring months of study before increases are normally allowed.
>
>>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...".
Exactly. A player will always be looking to exploit the rules in a way that gives them an advantage.
But everytime, as narrator, I have to conclude that something is within the rules, but I have to find a reason to stop it happening, my narrative is suffering. Even if I manage to find a means to stop something happening that doesn't seem contrived and my players don't notice, and its all seamless, I could still have spent that mental effort doing something more amusing.
So if I can't find any reasons why I might want something to happen in my game, and I can find plenty of reasons why I don't, then its better to just remove that possibility and not worry about.
>Whether those augments come from a single affinity or a slew
>of them doesn't matter.
It does to me - one is an exercise in optimisation, the other is rewarding the players for finding several ways to augment within the narrative.
>
>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".
In the former case, the undesirable effect (piling on augments so the number of augments becomes more important than the ability) is discouraged as a tactic by the intrinsic maths of the game. Its not particularly efficient. In the latter, its encouraged by the maths of the game, it being so efficient after a certain point that it can be more useful than increasing your actual abilities.
So, in the former, the game system takes care of the problem for me, while leaving open to me similar effects like augmentation by allies that actually aid my narrative. In the latter, the game system creates a problem for me.
>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.
This is exactly the problem I am talking about - do I WANT the narrative of my combat to be all about who gets enough augments, and that to be the prime thing in my characters minds when they make strategic decisions?
I certainly don't. I want rules that back me up.
>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.
Getting mad at the rules because they shift the strategic decisions into areas basically uninteresting and irrelevant to my narrative, on the other hand, is justified! I am not annoyed because some players will get ripped off - I am annoyed because an issue essentially antagonistic to my narrative becomes a major issue in characters planning actions. Because players who spend time thinking about the rules
> > 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.
I look for consistency, maths that are simple enough to predict that I can, as narrator, have a reasonable idea of the likely outcome without knowing in advance all my characters actions.
>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.
A plethora of augmentation makes it much hard to set the ability rating of my opponents, because the players goes up and down all over the place. That is the sort of problem I am against as a narrator. Any inequality that is due to a narrative choice by my players or me (like one the difference between stickpicker and king) is desirable. Any inequality that results from things outside and essentially irrelevant (or worse) to my narrative is bad.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail