>From: "Rob" <robert_m_davis_at_...>
>
>One thing that has cropped up in play IMG is that some players scour
>their character for augments and others don't. I also find that I
>may add a couple of augments to a Major NPC, but because we don't
>have full stats for them (and I don't want to start that discussion
>again) I tend to look at the base ability and lump another mastery
>or mastery and a half depending on who it is. Does anyone else
>follow a similar formula?
Depends. My rule is simply that if an augment is unstated, that there's no bonus. For example, you don't allow a player to have a couple extra points for augments that you think he didn't declare, do you? You might mention the augment as appropriate, and then ask if he wants to add it in, but you wouldn't just tack on a few points when they didn't bother to do a thourough search, would you?
See, to me, augments aren't some representation of actual ability, but rather story power that alters the likely outcome of the drama system. So if it's not stated, it doesn't add.
Now, that said, I might say, "He seems really steamed." or somesuch, and add a few points to a previously determined total. The idea being that there's some theoretical augment behind the scenes that represents this. But if I don't say anything, I don't augment for the bad guy.
This has a few effects. First, it means that, because the heroes do care, and are being appropriately exposed in terms of augments, they're more likely to win against big opponents. Which makes them seem more valorous. Second, it's simply easier. Call me lazy, but why not just use the one number when there's really no more enjoyment to be had by adding some augment number behind the scenes?
>And the sample resistances I take to represent a raw un augmented
>ability. Is that the general consensus?
Yes, in general, but, again, I don't often augment much. The more important the villain or narrator character, the more I'll have written notes on his abilities, and the more I might augment. Basically, mooks never get anything - if they don't have a name, they aren't worth the time (See Feng Shui, another Robin Laws design). If the villain has recurred many, many times, and we know him well, then we'll want to know why this conflict is important to him.
But at that point he's got stats on paper and is no longer anything like a "Sample Resistance."
>I guess the pitch I am for is that the players have enough masteries
>to blow away the minor guys and of course the masteries cancel when
>they go up against major NPC's giving a nicely scaled conflict.
I think that a wide range of opposing abilities is coolest. Including ones that can clean the heroes clocks. This for several reasons. For one, I don't think that one should predict the form of a contest before hand. That is, so what if dude has Maul Foe 10W4? He's only dangerous if it comes to a fight with him. Smart characters will probably avoid that, and go for the "Lure foe off cliff" contest. Smart players, however, will attack this guy anyhow if it makes sense to do so. Because losing in HQ is fun.
I may have to say this a million times, but I'll say it. One of the things that makes it so possible for the players' heroes to be heroic, is the fact that even if they lose, that only makes the character more interesting. So taking long shots becomes a reasonable option. And with Hero Points, and tons of augments (which, again the foe isn't likely getting) maybe they do fell the big beast, and then what a story they have to tell.
So don't be afraid to rate things "as you see them." That is, the drama will emerge in any case, so I don't believe that any particular level of contest is more dramatic than another. So what makes the most sense, is to rate things accurately according to the scales presented. And let the players make what they will of their opponents.
BTW, a really fun contest, IMO, is to allow the character to guage how tough their opponent is. Too often I've popped a really tough, or really weak opponent on the heroes, given their expectations. This is one place you can err. That is, if you had gigantic bear have a rating of Large 10, that just doesn't make sense in terms of player expectation - you wouldn't do it. Well, if somehow I give the impression that Ragnar the Swordsman is a wimp, and suddenly in a contest it turns out that he's the 10W3 master that teaches everyone in the kingdom, then I've done a disservice. I try to either tell the players outright what the abilitiy of their opponents is, at least in general terms ("He's got more than one mastery, guys.") or allow a contest to get a feel.
Failing a contest and then getting into a fight with a really tough opponent is really fun, because we can see where the disconnect occured. When it's a player disconnect, it's not so fun. In fact on a loss, I'd say, "Well, your character thinks he's in the mid one mastery range, but actually he's got more like mid twos." And then let the player dig his own hole for his character if he likes. Again, the smart character will take advantage of the failure to have his character attack and lose (giving him further things to think about, etc, etc).
Sorry to go on so long, but, sans context, how augments are used by an individual doesn't really say a lot, IMO.
Mike
Powered by hypermail