>> Even with a single augment there's a lot of "Is that narratively interesting?" flying around the table. In HQ1 it was actually easier to narrate multiple augments without breaking and,
>Interesting, I am pretty sure that once as GM I mentioned that an augment was repetitive but honestly I can't remember the specifics. This just never came up with our HQ2 games.
It has several times in mine. It doesn't crop up in other systems I run for some reason. Maybe it's the character's abilities that aren't suited for expressive narration - how can you make "strong" interesting for 87 rounds of extended contests? Admittedly checking the character sheets no-one's got that as an ability.
>And if your group is always amused by the Goon Show, then the rules explicitly allow that to be used all the time.
A couple of us are, there's usually a couple of blank faces around the table, especially from our youngest player whose parents might have caught the tail end of it.
>> And the point still stands that failing an augment is singularly uninteresting. What happens on a failed roll? Where's the tension? What's the player risking by trying to roll the augment? Very little - generally less than a 1/400 chance of getting -6.
>I agree with you, which is why I made sure there was a non-roll alternative. This didn't seem quite as one-sided as the varying abilities issue -- some of our players seemed to like rolling.
I quite like rolling as well, but with us everything just stops while the augment is resolved. The auto-augments don't provide that much of a benefit when they're plotting to grab a +W in an extended contest.
>> - Most lingering benefits that are contest specific aren't going to have a lot of life outside the contest
>Then they aren't really lingering, are they? (But that's just a terminology quibble.)
They can linger, a fair number of them aren't going be a lot of use outside the contest they were grabbed for.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail