>We haven't found that. In fact, the players were getting to the stage where
>they mostly wanted to roll the dice because augments were seen as a lot of
>faff
>often with no real effect; the lower roll was what mattered. This method
>allows us to cut to the chase and only really effects close results where a
>few
>points on the target number really count.
I was thinking that the speed was an advantage. OTOH, it also brings up an objeciton, however. Essentially, I like that players find the appropriate augments all that they can. Essentially, I don't think of this as "work" but as fun exploration of character. So that's actually a downside from my POV.
>I'd go as far as recommending it, and at the least, have it up your sleeve
>as
>a thing to try in a "don't bother with augments, if you need them you can
>roll (or compile a list of auto augments ) after the main roll. When you
>see you
>need +20 to alter a result then you realise that it is often not going to
>have
>been worht doing all those augments before hand in any case.
I agree that when you get that roll that says that the augment is pointless that it's sorta heartbreaking. I'm wondering if, on the contrary, we could find some method that would always make the augments count instead of ignoring them when they don't. Hmmm.
Mike
Powered by hypermail