> Personally, and it's not like I'm running anything right now, I don't much
> like the idea of saying at a Rules level that some abilities are more equal
> than others.
>
> The questions of what lay members can and can't do is a world question and
> so part of the credibility tests.
I think the "augment only" is a perfectly valid mechanic for certain kinds of magics.
While the difference to just using a credibility test is minor, it is a nice sharp edge that can help keep things clear: "Ability X is something that you use to augment other actions, not something that is used on its own."
Especially in cases where there is no supporting fiction (world emerges from play, as opposed to a fixed setting like Glorantha), it is a great communication aid:
"Can my character have <<Insert Really Cool Name Here>> as an augment-only magical ability?"
vs
"Can my character have <<Insert Really Cool Name Here>> as a magical ability? It'd be mostly used to augment stuff, but could also be used on its own?"
In the latter case unless the game is pretty freewheeling or the group has a strong common aesthetic, you need to talk a fair bit more in order to make sure you are on the same page. If you have strong supporting fiction or pre-estabilished world, the credibility test is easier to apply.
That said, I would read it as more of a strong guideline than an infallible rule -- if a situation arises where it is more credible for the ability to be used on its own than as an augment, sure... just as long as everyone is clear that something strange is going on.
Cheers,
PS. For burning a house the obvious base abilities are "Mercenary", "Henchman", "Barbarian Invader", and the default 6 for those rare few characters with no equivalent abilities. Since IIRC Heortlings are a nudist colony of rain-worshippers, I would go with the default 6. :P
Powered by hypermail