Agreed its a factor in a solution, but not the whole picture. In the current system a feat has two potential advantages over an affinity - you can augment an ability with more than one feat, and it may represent something you cannot otherwise do.
Under the new system the feat also has the advantage that it is cheaper to raise an inidvidual feat than the whole affinity, allowing a devotee 'power up'.
This is offset by the fact that it is in one feat. This is limited as before by the fact that it can only provide one augment, but for feats which all tend to augment the same mundane skill you can offset this against the bigger augment you can obtain. For example, you tend to use your Combat affinity feats to enhance Close Combat. Previously there was an incentive to be creative in play and use mutliple feats, (distinguished in game mechanics only by name) to allow multiple augments. Under the new proposal the incentive is to buy up one feat - e.g.Swordhelp - as a cheap way to increase the 'combat' affinity.
So in a combat situation you will have to work hard to remove the swordhelp advantage. The flavor of the game changes. This applies to other affinities that are used to augment or provide an edge rather than provide a skill - the incentive is to buy up one feat.
The swordhelp problem is inherint in the low-mechanics nature of the system. I like the low-mechanics nature of the system, but fear it oculd end up being broken if we start introducing new mechanics to satisfy 'simulationists'. I think trying to make a non-simulationist game simulationist is fraught with peril.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail