Good to have an engineer look at this. This is interesting as I suspect most people would think that the 2 point edge on an equal contest is more significant than in an unequal contest. To a certain degree, this may not have been a problem until you pointed it out (what you don't know can't hurt you).
It makes me think of the squaring of differences in standard parametric statistics which, apart from removing the sign, emphasises the differences of the more different (that's what I tell students anyway as it makes sense that way).
What you really want there is to develop some kind of inverse square relationship which translates into simple dice rolling. But, even if that were doable, it'd not be in the updated rules.
I think the key is in what you do with the augments (as Ian suggested). Augments are one of the best features of HQ but are unsatisfying to just about everyone (IMO). Mathematically, the sort of relationship where augments have a weight equivalent to the difference in TN is the direct relationship.
Perhaps a new mechanic for augments wherein you roll first (as in Arkeef's way) for the two TN's and then, if it is interesting*, do something clever with the augments and the differences in TN's, or in the rolls, or in the differences between the TN's and rolls.
What the clever thing is I am not sure, but I feel that there is some way in there to resolve the augmenting issue.
Sam.
Powered by hypermail