Re: Re: Augment-only stats

From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:13:19 -0500


Todd Gardiner wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly, so why add the "augment only" hedge?
> >
> > No, I feel the "hedge" would be to add a sentence or two unnecessarily
> explaining intended use.
>

But those are there in addition to the "augment only" comment, so you aren't saving anything. (And "augment only" without an explanation of why would be bizarre.)

> For example, these abilities almost never find a
> direct use in a contest because they are not directly active traits of the
> character, but rather subtle magics that are used to in conjunction with
> other actions and abilities that the character might use, yadda, yadda,
> yadda. Therefore we recommend restricting their use to augment-only.
> That's
> a hedge, in my usage.
>

But other than "recommend", that's basically what's there.

>
> Much easier to just tell people the intended use and let them decide
> when to
> deviate.
>

Right. These magics can't be used to produce extraordinary effects and must be used in conjunction with a mundane ability. One sentence. Why add - "They can only be used as an augment and not directly in a contest", thus adding a layer of game mechanic to something that is already clear?

I get that we aren't going to agree on this, btw, and will stop after this. *smile*
It's clear this is one of those "It obviously makes more sense to me this way" things that different people will disagree with.

> 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,
>

Exactly, which is why I find outlawing a section of abilities in advance to be an odd approach. The whole point of the rules is that you and your players get to decide when it is relevant.

> 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.
>

I still think it is an unnecessary add on, since that decision is already part of the rules.
>
>
> Thus, I have no problem with this choice for describing how Common Magic
> varies from full Rune Affinity.
>

IT's still a rune affinity. You mean rune affinity varies from divine 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?
>

Um. Yes. I actually think this was a case of adding mechanical crunch to make a "separation" that wasn't necessary, but appeals to gamers sense of "Now I have RULES!"
(I actually think much the same happened in the animist rules as presented.)

So what would I use? "At this point, it does not behave like an extraordinary power. You cannot do anything overtly supernatural with it; you simply get magically better at doing ordinary things."

There, now you can make credibility tests with it.

Also avoids the, "If you spend for a breakout ability within this, even though you aren't an initiate, you can use it directly. (The text is unclear whether you can use it for extraordinary effects , although since the example lets you create a circle of darkness, apparently now you can produce extraordinary abilities.)

Once an initiate: you may describe actions and contest results as overtly supernatural. (Along with the paragraphs of explanation and caveats that apply.)

See, simple, fewer excess rulings for the sake of mechanical crunch, and more cohesive IMHO. Far easier to game.

LC

Powered by hypermail