I fear this is in danger of re-treading some by now very well-trodden ground indeed, so I'll try to confine myself to the specificly new points. (If this comes as too much of a shock to anyone, just imagine numerous copies of "But I disagree", "But in post [...] I argue that...", and "I'm not making a simulationist/RQhead point here!" etc, to taste. <g>)
Bryan Thexton:
> Even moving away from inherent traits like tough or smart, this would
> even apply to many overly broad skills. If you used
> your "knowledgeable" (at a huge improv penalty of course) to remember
> something about troll riding insects, this doesn't make you any more
> knowledgeable.
I think that's a different argument entirely. This could just as easily be used to say you can't improve your "Detailed knowledge of Uz insectile cavalry tactics" skill, as your "knowledgeable" or "smart". Much the same can be said about "inherent" traits vs. "learned" skills -- that property is largely orthogonal to "breadth".
> In short I would suggest that "broad" skills are inherently somewhat
> penalized by the fact that seldom can they be improved without double
> cost.
I think it'd likely be better for the game (as wot she is played) to be explicit about why one was "penalising" increasing certain abilities (because they're overly broad, which is precisely what the Gregster's rule does), rather than come up with "I won't tell you the real reason, but here's one that'll do just as well" rationales for doing so. Firstly, I'd prefer to be up front with my players about what abilities are going to be picked on this way, and this seems to make it considerably less transparent. Secondly, it immediately leads to the "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb" syndrome: if I use my Strong in a significant way in your game, and don't get the HP-cost "break", there's no _further_ deterrent to me increasing it after a session in which I didn't use it one iota.
Powered by hypermail