>Why they were dropped, like you say, but also I think they are prone
>to abuse and become overly powerful if not tightly controlled. Plus
>simplicity is the 'in thing' these days in games.
I have to admit that there's something about edges that I find interesting - I actually prefer more complex mechanics. There are a couple of problems, however. First, as we've all said, the current method seems to model things just fine for the purposes of play, so the necessity of a more complex mechanic is in doubt. That is, it's not "simplicity" at all, really. In all cases of design, there is one goal that all designers have, which can be termed elegance. Elegance refers to the ratio of work that's required to operate the system, as compared to the quality of the feedback produced by the work. You always want the work to quality ratio to be as low as possible.
The problem is that while work is pretty easily calculated, quality is quite subjective. For one person having a system that provides hit locations is high quality, for another it's a pointless addition.
Looking at HQ, however, since the system tends to the abstract in many ways, adding an additional abstraction didn't really seem to add much for anyone. That is, just using bonuses seems to give the same quality of feedback to most players while requiring less work (however slight the amount). It's more elegant that way.
Now, this is arguable, but there's another point to be made, which is that certain tactics make edges produce rather crumby feedback. If you have even an edge of ^1 you have a very large incentive to bid just one AP (or even zero if the GM will allow it). Because the lower you bid, the larger the expected payoff becomes. For example, if I have a ^1 edge, and I bid 20, then I'm risking losing 20, or gaining 21 (or causing the enemy to lose that many, which is equivalent). The advantage is marginal. If I bid 1, then I'm risking losing 1, but gaining 2. If the edge is large, this becomes more pronounced. With a ^5 edge, bidding one gives you a six to one advantage in payoff (all else being equal - disparity in scores actually makes this worse, not better).
Not everyone catches on, or plays to the tactics, but why allow the incentive at all, when the other system suffices to model the advantages in a manner that's nearly, if not just as, suitable?
Mike
Powered by hypermail