Bring back edges

[Mandrake]

There was a "boost fire magic augments cast on spear by 50%" and possibly something else

[Mike Holmes]

So how about an Enhance Fire Magic ability? Yeah it doesn't mechanically translate perfectly. But, in fact, I'd argue that the result will work better in play.

Mike

[Mandrake]

The problem I would have with that is that much of the time it would be augmenting and augment.

I'm still not entirely sure how I would use the ability that replaces the old bonus/edge or indeed how to translate from bonuses/edges to an ability rating - would a dagger ^1 and a spear ^6 have the same rating, similar ratings or wildly different ratings?

[Mike Holmes]

Took me a second to figure it out, you mean "Augmenting an augment."

This is a commonly cited problem, and I used to worry about this too, until I figured out the better way to do it. Just make it a normal augment. Yeah, this may mean that the "helper" ability is providing more augment than the augment it's meant to help. But that's not really a problem. In fact, if you think about it, it's pretty cool. Instead of getting this minor effect, you may be getting a doubling of effect or more. So that +2 fire effect now looks like a much cooler +5 or something.

The effect is still limited in that you can only bring it in to augment in a contest when the other ability is in play as primary or augmenting.


As for replacing the edges...well, I'll reiterate what I do. I simply do not rate weapons at all. I only give situational bonuses. And when I do, they often blow the original bonuses out of the water. For instance, if you have some monster sword worth +5 per the HQ book, and I have a dagger worth +1, the net difference is a +4. Significant, sure, but not huge. I might rule that situationally, defending against an attack with a sword that size in a particular situation might be with a -10 penalty to your dagger skill - it's just not something that a dagger is good for or that you prepare for with dagger training (or, if you know different, then in your game you can modify differently). Same sort of thing as if you tried to defend against a sword with your "Fistfighting" ability.

The rationale is that, well, if you fight without a sword using your swordfighting ability, you're going to get a penalty, right? Perhaps a huge one, or even an automatic failure (check the charts regarding that near the section on automatic bonuses). So we're informed that we're supposed to be making this sort of assessment already. Isn't this like cooking without cookware? Normal equipment gives you the ability to perform a skill that uses said equipment at normal level. Just as normal ground lets you use your Run Fast ability without bonus or penalty (whereas wet ground might be a penalty). The only purpose for edges and bonuses is to check the relative potency of weapons.

But the problem with stock bonuses like this is that they don't consider the situation. Wet ground might be precisely what you need in a certain odd running contest. And a dagger is better for fighting somebody in a sewer than the sword. Sure you can stack these situational modifiers on top of the standard bonuses, but why bother? Why say, "OK, you get +5 for that big sword, but -10 for the sewer?" Where's that +5 coming from? It's a normal sword, it should get no bonus other than it's good for the situation at hand.

Why do people tote around big weapons? Well, because other people do so, too, and in most situations, the larger weapon is going to have an advantage over the smaller one. But, then not always, so this explains why people carry daggers as well...

Anyhow, so I don't rate weapons at all. Unless...unless, they're not, in fact, "normal." If the weapon is of high or low quality, then, by all means that should be listed. Just as you list if your strenght is higher or lower than the norm. And then the augment from that rating represents the weapons' quality working for you when it's appropriate to augment with that rating.

What't cool about this is that such ratings (which are a normal part of the game, not some special rule I'm making up), do not get washed out in the bonus. That is, let's say I take Flaming Sword 5W. That gives me a +3 augment, normally pretty cool. But if that's attached to a sword that gives a +5 bonus...well it's just not that special then.

Anyhow, that's how I play it.

Mike

[nichughes]

This is exactly the kind of discussion you want to avoid happening in play.

Yes and no. As OOC debate it is clearly going to hurt the game. As IC narration it can be a lot of fun and leaving players with some leeway to do this sort of thing is IMO a good idea. I find the trick is not to argue about it, if a player comes up with a funky move then go with the flow and deal with it. Its hard to a abuse the system because the situational modifiers are decided by the narrator.

--
Nic

[nichughes]

Use of polearms in close quarters depends on the close quarters. I'd agree that you can use the blunt end, (or as many ax bladed polearms have suplementary stabbing points, the pointy end) but that would assume you have room to use a spear for instance. In very confined quarters, you wouldn't neccessarily. But as stated in earlier reply, you can argue all kinds of situational modifiers that would just slow things down.

As a rule of thumb you are probably best off assuming that any widely used weapon is at least moderately useable in most combat situations in the hands of a capable person. Polearms might seem awkward but their users were trained in how to wield them effectively in the crush of a melee and other tight spots - so to a trained user they were not awkward. 

If you set up a scene with unusual conditions then situational modifiers are the way to go. The variety of these situations is almost infinite and limited only by the warped imagination of the narrator - so I'd leave it to the narrator to devise the effects of the situation on a case by case basis. If some such situations what is usually a bonus might be a handicap - such as using a large weapon in a tight crawl-space or when wearing armor under the influence of Heaviness magics.

---
Nic

[Vaxalon]

This is exactly the kind of discussion you want to avoid happening in play.

Yes and no. As OOC debate it is clearly going to hurt the game. As IC narration it can be a lot of fun and leaving players with some leeway to do this sort of thing is IMO a good idea. I find the trick is not to argue about it, if a player comes up with a funky move then go with the flow and deal with it. Its hard to a abuse the system because the situational modifiers are decided by the narrator.

Running a short simple contest to determine who can get the situational advantage makes even more sense.

[Mandrake]

Running a simple contest to decide situational modifiers for an extended costs seems wrong to me.

Biggest issue here I think is having players that will accept narrator's ruling without too much of a fight. That's going to be a challenge in our group :)

[Vaxalon]

If you're having fights around the table, game rules won't help you.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi all,

If you're having fights around the table, game rules won't help you.

This the heart of the matter but not in the obvious way.
The whole edge thing is  "fair transparent and easily applied" i.e. it helps support an agenda that is concerned with strategy. It can turn combat into a mini strategy game, and if this is consistent with the agenda around the table then it supports play. In Mandrake's past games he has had this focus and it worked well.

But, he may wish to change that style now.

Mandrake, is your main concern about having meta-game discussions over such issues? I do not share the concern over not having such discussions, but you and others in our group may.

In a narrativist agenda the whole "fair transparent and easily applied" concept is alien. Such an agenda is not concerned with strategy and does not often detail the individual actions in a fight. To a player that is not used to this idea they may worry that the GM is being unfair in his application of situational modifiers, but this should improve as the agenda is demonstrated.

So, to bring this back on topic, Mandrake, how do you envision combat will be run in your next game? Do you still want to focus on the strategic content of the fight or are you considering de-emphasising combat, or any other vision for that matter? Do you want to use edges in order to maintain the functional play that we enjoyed with HW?