Exactly!
How are you going to change the world? Do not drop the word "how" from that question.
> But if someone bothers to mention playing fox and
> geese in their narrative it
> is not because they are slightly good at it.
> It it because it is so important to the character
> concept that they mention it.
Exactly, again. And while they *could* max out their 20-point spend on that skill, doing the same spend on a skill from their keywords would result in a higher end result.
Possibly the answer for these different possibilities of play styles is to say "there's three keywords, plus the 100-word skills. Of these four sets, one will only be at 13, not 17. Pick which one."
> Hero Wars gave you homeland culture keyword at 13,
> occupation and religion at
> 17, and narrative words at 13. Then you chose one
> ability from these to be
> 5W, and two to be 1W. Powergame wise, it makes sense
> to have the 5W/1Ws, on
> something that would otherwise be 13.
I thought this, until I realised it would have been a much better power-gaming idea to put them on skills that cost 3 to raise - CC or affinities. Don't you just hate it when power-gaming considerations try to drag you away from character concept?
> Impressive Beard 5W really is
> impressive and worth having. Impressive Beard 13 is
> just dull.
And power-gaming says you spend 2 points on it to raise it to the +2 augment bracket, but no more, because at a 13 start-point, you can't make the next augment bracket...
> #2
> I don't really like whole keyword concept either. To
> me they should be just
> normal abilities, from which one can improvise the
> activities listed under them.
And, like feats from affinities, pick *one* skill when augmenting?
That's an interesting idea. And would give more power to having the "same" skill under several keywords.
> #6
> Anyone who thinks an RPG can or should accurately
> model some sort of
> skill/ability/whatever aquisition is beyond bonkers.
> HP are a meta-game contrivance to
> reward players and make the game fun.
And they result in PCs getting better at stuff, in small increments ... this is not necessarily what makes for "fun". Neither "better", nor "small" are models of what might be dramatically appropriate. It is, however, a model of *something*.
> If I've learnt anything from experience
> it is that people do not get better and better at
> everything.
Which is why any model of how their abilities vary with time needs to go down, as well as up.
"Old and past it 5W2", anyone? Flaws are free (or did that get dropped when we moved from HW to HQ?)
Powered by hypermail