Re: Re: Close Combat

From: Viktor Haag <vhaag_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:17:32 -0400

Roderick and Ellen Robertson writes:
> And the reason I poo-pooed it was that David Dunham had
> convinced me that "Close Combat" is the ability to hurt people
> - that's all it does. So what if you are hurting them with a
> long pointy thing or a short heavy one? It was needlessly
> adding complexity. CC wasn't a "Broad" ability like say,
> Strong or Intelligent, which could be used in many different
> situations as a primary ability, and in many more as an
> augmentor.

So Close Combat is not useful for

    (a) control over one's body in dicey sitautions, frex dodging

        that incoming chamber pot

    (b) grappling and holding someone in a safe and secure

        manner, frex when they've suffered some madness or
        seizure or drunken fit

    (c) posturing and showing off in front of potential enemies
        to, if lucky, *prevent* the need to hurt them and risk
        hurting yourself

    (d) rippling one's muscles and posturing in front of
        potential bed-mates to impress them with your strength
        and virility

    (e) mentoring and teaching others in the most efficient ways
        to hurt others (or achieve goals a through d) without
        actually doing damage to them

I take David's point, and I agree that 'Close Combat' is not as broad a category as 'Frightful Strength' or 'Alarming Intelligence', but it's easily as broad as, say, 'Know how to pack a mule'...

(Not having my rulebook with me, I'm shamefully unable to tie this point back into the actual improvement cost for the Close Combat ability...)

-- 
Viktor