Much easier to just tell people the intended use and let them decide when to deviate.
> > Some other things could be described as augment-only (armor and weapons),
> > but for the more part, those items where bundled into your cultural
> > keyword.
> > If you bought "Fine weapons and armor" as an ability, I'd probably
> > allow that to be used directly as an ability, but it's a great augment
> > fighting, impressing foes, and gaining the admiration of your chief.
> See, I would use the Core Rules interpretation for named equipment and
> abilities like Shiny Sports Car and let you use them directly for those
> things, because they are abilities.
> I did not feel that "Fine weapons and armor" met the standards of named
equipment. Some other examples that skirt the line "Rare Trade Goods" (yet somehow this is not just Wealth), "Explorer Gear" (would you actually use the gear for making tracking roles, hunting checks and so on?). No doubt there are other examples. But the rules allow *me* to decide which abilities don't make it over the hurdle to becoming the focus of a resistance check, rather than cataloging examples. Most will be Named Equipment, Sidekicks or direct abilities (or flaws). But, on occasion, someone comes up with something that won't fit into this box.
Common Magic just flips that model around. Here, they say that these are expected to be used as Augment-only, but as with any decree in HQ2, this is subject to change by the narrative need.
Thus, I have no problem with this choice for describing how Common Magic varies from full Rune Affinity.
What would you have proposed as the means of differentiating between Rune Affinity and Common Magic? What would be required for the authors to make the same limits and allowances, yet make them have a concrete difference when it came time to make a contest? I would suggest that simplicity means less table "discussion" (read :arguments), which is core to MGF. Would your solution to this need for definition be able to fulfill this need?
Powered by hypermail