Re: Resources: Cementing vs. Bolstering

From: Gavain Sweetman <gavain.sweetman_at_...>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:27:40 +0000 (GMT)

>> ferguswindbag <abf_at_...>
>>

Intuitively, it seems as if it ought to be easier to cement a "Background Events" bonus than it is to "Bolster" a resource with no bonus (or independently of such a bonus). But HQ2 seems to imply the reverse: cementing is "a major goal [...] an evening's worth of play"; bolstering (at least on the face of it) is just a single contest. Doesn't this seem to imply that the background bonuses are effectively redundant, and if one wishes to increase any of them, "bolstering" is the way to go?
>>

As far as I read it Bolstering gets a temporary bonus to a resource. If you want to make that bonus a permanent one then you have to cement it.

For Example your Issaries merchant spots and opportunity to exchange the clans excess wool to the neighboring warrior clan for weapons. This would bolster the clans War resource. But only temporarily until the weapons get damaged. That would be, to me, a simple contest.

Now if they want a more permanent increase then the merchant would have to arrange a permanent trade deal with the warrior clan, a more complex proposition, and thus a more complex contest required.

>>

But if not: how are people handling this? Any brainwaves?
>>

That's the way I am doing it with my players.