Re: Re: Augment-only stats

From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:57:59 -0500

Aescleal (Ashley Munday) wrote:
>
>
> Okay, I'm a bit confused here.
>
> From what I've been reading LC and Matthew's positions are broadly:
>
> If I as a player decide I'm going to create character that deliberately
> specifies one or more abilities that will be only used as augments or
> stretches to communicate a character concept then that's cool.
>

Not my position.
If you specify a trait is broad that's cool. If you use it primarily as augments that's cool. I would not let you specify something as being "augment only" because there's no point to that.

> However if a
> GM uses the same tool to communicate a constraint of the game world,
> genre
> or other facet that would be outside the player's experience then that's
> somehow limiting?
>

I object to an ability being limited to augment only, not to an *use* of an ability being augment only.

i.e. - "You can only use your whetstone as an augment." I would object to this as pointless.
  "Your whetstone is probably most often going to be used as an augment to your sword attack." I would be fine with this as it doesn't prevent me from using the whetstone directly when it is an appropriate ability, such as for a contest about sharpening something.

Is that any clearer?

LC  

>
> I can't quite reconcile the two positions in my mind at the mo.
>
> Ash
>