Re: Magical Augments - A little extreme?

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:58 +0800

>I wrote:
>...
>> Wesley's *concern* is
>> that allowing multiple augments before the contest begins *might* be
>> a problem for game balance.
>[and suggested we work on addressing that concern rather than
>changing the augmentation rules in general]
>
>David Cake replied:
>...
>> Allow augments after the first to only act as edges. It
>> works from the maths point of view, works from the game balance point
>> of view.
>...
>
>Except that your rule affects *all* augmentation, not just the
>situation when a character has can set up an unlimited number of
>augments before the contest. As several game years of play shows that
>the augmentation rules are generally not broken, suggesting a
>wholesale change to them is inappropriate.

	They just aren't badly broken, so you don't notice it much :-)
	I think most augments naturally work more like edges anyway.

>And what do you mean about 'from the game balance point of view'? The
>problem to be solved is the unlimited number of augments possible
>before the contest. Whether those augments cause a bonus or an edge
>does not change whether those augments are game unbalancing (or
>boring). Are you saying a +W3 bonus would be terribly unbalancing
>(and boring roll) but a +120 edge would not? ROFL

	Yes.
	And the reason why is simple. The edge doesn't come into 

effect unless you WIN. A huge edge allows you beat an opponent that you will already beat quickly and brutally, and greatly increases your chance of beating someone that is your relative equal. But it doesn't allow you to beat an opponent that has a huge advantage over you in ability.

	Try it - 10w3^120 will still lose to 10w5, but 10w6 will beat 10w5.
	For me, that makes a huge difference in game balance - edges 

are useful, but don't allow you to take on opponents that are utterly out of your league. So the biggest edge in the world is limited in just how unbalancing it can be.

>
>Restricting augments to edges is a bad idea, I think. It limits the
>character's options.

        Yes. It limits the degree to which they can unbalance my game.

> Edges can be a poor representation of some
>augments.

        Yes. But sometimes its a bit better.

>
>Also, the maths of handling edges is a bit of hassle

        My claim was that the maths worked better (vis a vis counter intuitive weirdness with logarithmic values), not that it was easier. Though edges still involve just adding numbers together - how hard can it be.

	Cheers
		David