Re: Re: Augment-only stats

From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:52:43 -0500

  Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
>
> The text, as I read it, suggests giving modifiers for (1) using
> equipment badly matched to the ability like a knight without his
> armor, and (2) genre-motivated class superiority like iron-using Sea
> People vs bronze-using Hittites.
>

Isn't there also a whole bit about using equipment as situational advantage if that's appropriate? Or did I just imagine that?
>
>
> That said, I don't see any problem with RAW here -- I just find it
> easier to look at contestants, and assign a modifier based on superior
> weaponry/position/whatever.
>

That's exactly what I do and I was certain it is explicitly encouraged in the RAW. (It just also says if you want your equipment to be narratively important, make it an ability.)

> People can still take equipment as
> abilities, but that tends to represents exceptional stuff and things
> with special story significance: not "Sturdy Axe" or "Gleaming Armor",
> but "Axe of Grimhawk", etc.
>

See, if I put 'sturdy axe' in my sheet, I've made it story significant. (That's my view.)
"He is never without his sturdy axe". That means it is story significant and can be used to solve problems. "how did he escape? He used his sturdy axe."
If I have "Axe fighting", I probably have an axe to, and it might give me a situational mod for the reasons you give above, but the axe doesn't have a rating because I didn't bother to give it one.

If I have "Gleaming Armor", it's because it is important story wise/character wise, that I have gleaming armor. If I have knight, I still have armor.
>
>
> Situational superior weaponry is less narrative oriented than HQ2 for
> the most part.
>

I wouldn't say that. I find all situational modifiers inherently narrative.

I think we're splitting hairs here, of course. ^__^ It sounds like we basically play the same way.

LC