I do like the clarity of the new system, and the multiple outcome
measures based on dramatic necessity.
I really like that the margin of victory is important. (An eked out 5-4
victory isn't the same as a 5-1.)
I think the new rules for followers work far more elegantly than the old
ones.
It has only come up twice, but it sort of bugs me that a complete victory on the opening roll gives you a major win, not a complete. (Mind you, that's still pretty awesome, so that's minor.)
There are things I miss about the old one, though.
I sometimes miss bidding, in that it felt like you have more control/tactical choice in the contest. You can risk it all or play it safe. While you can simulate some of that narratively in the new one, it doesn't feel quite the same.
Of course, the old AP rules based on ability numbers post augment were often deeply problematic. I used to fix AP values, which was a partial fix. The fact that there is a one augment limit now seems like it would help limit that bloat. (although the follower rules would still be there)
The new contests also feel like they have less ebb and flow and finish much more quickly than the old ones. I think this comes from not having the transfer option. I'm not sure. The only way to get points back is to get an assist, and you can't assist yourself. It does seem unfortunate that you can't "beat your opponent back from the edge of victory".
These are very minor gripes - so far the new system mostly works very well.
Has anyone been playing with using the old extended contest rules or a hybrid of the two? (And if someone has come up with a hybrid, I'd love to hear about it.)
LC
Powered by hypermail