> From: gamartin_at_...
> > That is quite manifestly not what the rules describe themselves as
> > modelling. The rules are intended to support description of the
> > _narrative_, not to model the world in any other sense. Thus the
>
> And that is exactly what they do. As I pointed out above, the
> gaining oif a new technique in an old skill is not dignificant to the
> narrative either.
I don't think you did "point out" such a thing, nor do I think it's true.
> > question is more properly posed as, which sorts of narratives should
> > be more expressly supported in the rules, ones in which there is
> > very little distinction made between different fighting styles,
> > different cultural traditions, and even different weapons, or ones
> > in which this is made more of?
>
> Well, we are going in circles, because I see plemnty of distinction.
Then why do you defend the current system on the grounds that such distinctions are "not significant to the narrative"?
> > to ignore. "By the book" HW allows little taking account of Orlanth
> > being the conquerer of all weapons, and Humakt the master of just
> one,
> > does it?
>
> I have no idea.
Let me help you out, then: the answer is "no".
> But all you arer descrtibing is limits to culturally
> available skills.
I don't understand this comment. My point is, mythic precedent would seem to make the distinction between a person "skilled in all weapons" and "master of just one" "narratively significant". The HW game system makes this distinction trivially small, at best.
> Well then, what IS it that you want the system to model?
> I fear we are talking past each other.
What it claims to: narrative.
Powered by hypermail