RE: Digest Number 345

From: Thom Baguley <t.s.baguley_at_...>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:42:26 +0000

> From: "A. K. Berner" <open_micro_at_...>
>This mechanic seems very central to the entire game and yet is so little
>discussed while obtuse points about heroquests and such seem to be such hot
>topics... I'm not sure if most narrators just ignore the description and
>say, "you get a penalty of -2 during this contest" and forget describing
>what is happening e.g. "because I (or the rules) say so" or if they are
>using something similiar to the above best explaination in the case of using
>appropriate skills and ending up with large penalties via a bad roll.

I suspect it is very little discussed because very few groups play with vanilla augment rules. AFAIK most groups seem to be using house rules that make penalties from augments much rarer. (I apply penalties to the augmenting ability for the scene).

>It almost seems as if it would make much more sense to cap how high a
>bonus/edge players can go for and have minor defeats count as 'no effect'
>since explaining that a player doesn't dodge effectively during the contest
>is much easier to narrate than a penalty. It seems to make more sense in
>terms of mastering something also since trying to do something and failing
>is MUCH more common than an attempt screwing you up if you are half decent
>at it.

I don't agree with capping augments. Variant house rules have penalties starting at major defeat and marginal or minor defeat being "no effect". Either of the two house rules described seem to work.

Thom