Split from This Thread

I mean the Difficulty. Your comment on RAM9 suggests that the "other way" round (Bonus is my Bonus and Difficulty is my Difficulty) it would be more intuitive. Thats what I would call it!

If I follow you correctly, you're asking why the rules have a bonus for me providing a bonus for me, while a difficulty for my opponent provides a bonus for me (instead of a difficulty for my opponent).  The reason is to make the player mathematically neutral over which to do, so the only consideration is what makes sense from the narrative rather than what gives the biggest benefit.

So if I have a Result of 3, I can give myself a Bonus of 3 to my next roll...or I can give my opponent a Difficulty of 3 for his next roll.  If I oppose him, I take his Difficulty as a bonus so I still wind up with a Bonus of 3 to my roll.

What is with my idea of getting drained each time you augment under stress?

That's more or less how it works now...only suffering a full Drain for each Augment would be too big of a deal, which is why Charge was invented...so that you suffer Drain every "X" augments (or oppositions) where "X" is your Charge.

The problem is tracking it as a decision point...marking off the expenditure before making the roll (but only for certain rolls) and evaluating "is this roll important enough to spend my limited Charge on"...is just clunky for what is supposed to be very quick action.