David Dunham:
> Alex uttered
>
> > the lamentable Generic Close Combat
>
> That's the delightfully generic Close Combat...
>
> Which is probably the touchstone of the divide here.
I don't really think it is; for me, personally, I'd like to see the broad abilities rules change _even if_ for some mysterious reason we have to keep Close Combat (including karate, fyrd combat, lance use, shinty, and sumo, evidently) as a "narrow" skill.
There are two quite separate issues here: is the idea of some abilities being "broader" than others a valid one, and does it merit some degree of rules support; and what "benchmark" should the rules set in what's the norm for the "breadth" of abilities (or for each class of ability, if this eminently logical rules change survives the abuse it's getting on this list). That is, after all, all the published material does, as regards player-described abilities.
> If you think a
> roleplaying game needs more combat skills, you probably want to add
> more skills everywhere. If you see no need for more combat rules
> gunking up your perfectly good stories, you see no need for more
> skill rules elsewhere.
I don't see how the question is one of "more" combat skills. This is, after all, a game in which the number of possible ability tags is (almost, and practically speaking) unlimited -- why should it be a matter of game design philosophic faith that There Can Be Only One "hurting people" skill? Nor do I think it's likely to create more than one "combat skill" _per character_.
Powered by hypermail