Augmenting has been a major issue ever since HW became HQ, and despite the many workable and indeed often logical work-rounds I think that the continued raising of this issue highlights inadequate descriptions and advice in the main rules.
Most of the solutions seem to fit the chosen game styles of the players, hard limits fit the more traditional groups who tend towards prescriptive rules and a clear task resolution success/failure outlook. "You have to describe it to use it" solutions fit groups who are focused on actively exploring the story elements of their conflicts. Limits based on keywords fit somewhere in between, with a hard limit set by a story logic. "If you do it then I do it" seems to be an adaptive method best used for groups that haven't clearly defined their style of play, but seems to me more stick than carrot.
Even a discussion of how such choices will effect play could be interesting in the new rules, but I personally would prefer the rules to get off the fence on these issues (not universally popular I notice but that's my view). My strong feelings on this are based on my difficulties of advocating a story focused game when the players can just point at the game text and undermine the whole idea.
Powered by hypermail