This is my current rule. You can have lots of augments but only one of them applies at any one time to any one feature. For example, one could be an offensive edge, one could be defensive edge, the other could be a bonus. They are all still "there" so to speak, but only some of them apply if, for example, you changed abilities during an extended contest. Strong +3 might apply to both pushing an opponent down a steep slope and to climbing up the slope to escape, whereas as Leap +4 might only help going up.
<< I appreciate this may sound extreme to fans of the current approach
(and it seems a bit austere even to me), but if this were rewritten
to be "only the best three", that -- coupled with a ban on multiple
augments off the same ability -- would sort out both of my problems.>>
The idea is actually to encourage masturbatory tactical dice rolling in extended contests where it is sometimes more sensible to try to augment than to try to suceed against a better opponent. I like the players going through their abilities as they fail to get the highest augment that they can, trying to justify how their ability gives them (or the target of their augmentation) an advantage. I like the teamwork aspect of trying to boost one Hero to a reasonable level with leadership, poetry, intimidation, deep counsel, strategy, mythology, loud shouting, etc. I like the fact that it encourages the use of a wide range of abilities.
<< Sandy "Quad Damage" Petersen makes a persuasive case for +1 per 5, at
least when starting out. Anyway, encouraging players to make opposed
rolls against a resistance of their own choosing feels uncomfortably
masturbatory to me. Give 'em generous free augments, and propel them
into conflict, that's what I say!>>
My resistance for augments has been reduced from 5 to 4 per bonus (actually 2 on D10) and 2 per edge (or 1 on D10 - ie you want an edge of 10, the resistance is 10. The other feature that makes this less austere is that with d10 we have a higher chance of criticals, and fumbles but these can be ignored. This is also a feature, IMO, is that I can apply fun penalties for complete defeats).
I think I'm with Sandy in that a +1 is not really worth bothering with. Six +1's from the same affinity is a bit dull and time consuming. one +6 and four failures and a compleat defeat with long term fun consequences is, IMO more fun.
Part of the reason, purely gamist, is that you attempt to get the best augment on the first roll, if the situation is bad enough you might even HP bump it to get a double bonus. If you succeed, no more augmenting, get on with the Actions. If you fail, try augment No2, possibly for a safer amount, fail again and try Augment No 3. Complete defeat - disaster evil narrator gives you some embarrasing handicap that probably won't affect this contest but needs sorting out, finally go for a measly augment so that at least you get some positive bonus, OR go for a large augment becasue it is porbably the ony way to win the contest.
Keith
Powered by hypermail