> ....The Narrator decides
> on the improvisational penalty to apply when an ability is used
outside
> its precise area of application (e.g. using 'Dodge Strike' to dodge
> missiles) or if the ability is generic (e.g. 'Dodge'). The Narrator
also
> has the option of disallowing too abilities that are too generic.
>
> Personally, I'd allow 'Dodge', but always impose a penalty.
We (and I) have been down this road before with Close Combat. I've supported the idea of broad abilities that always have appropriateness penalties on them beofre, and I now believe this approach is wrong. Surely a game mechanic in which a target number is given, but which is always modified and never rollead against streight, is flawed?
The solution with Close Combat was to go the same way as Affinities. I strongly believe this is the right direction to go in with all broad based abilities.
Furthermore, by listing secondary abilities (be they combat styles, Affinities or types of dodging) in decreasing order of preference with a sliding scale of penalties, we can have our cake and eat it.
Our character's favourite activities can use the ability rating unmodified, while we can still have appropriateness modifiers applied to less well known secondaries, and perhaps apply a large flat appropriateness modifier (-10 or so perhaps) to improvised secondaries.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail