> See those penalties up there? at -15, your "Speak [Spanish]" is 2... That's
> about the level of knowing "Asta la vista, baby" means "You die, punk". :-).
Nope, I think _I_ have Speak Spanish 2, and that's Speak Spanish 0. ;-)
> > The numbers here are bonkers, though: I was disappointed to see that
> > HQ screws this up incrementally more than does HW (if I recall both
> > correctly). If I take the trouble to _describe_ my facility at a
> > particular thingy, it ought to mean I'm better at it than if some I-I
> > hack <g> just happens to decide that "everyone" in my culture can do
> > this -- not vice versa! Might be better to have all your keywords
> > start at 13, and give out more "elective" higher TNs (a load of 17s,
> > for one); or to give a bonus, say +2 or +4, every time you 'double
> > up' on a skill -- e.g. everyone in your culture does Watch TV (13), but
> > your family has a 'trait' of being especially decidated couch potatoes
> > (+whatever), and furthermore, you're remarkable even among them (wrote
> > it down in your 100 words, have another +yadda).
>
> Well, If you take the trouble to describe an ability that is already
> included in your cultural keyword, then you should also take the trouble to
> assign some points to it during character creation, so you *will* be better
> at it. Perhaps not Lance Armstrong good, but better than Mary Jane who only
> rides to church and back on sundays.
Bah. That's no sort of justification of the keyword numbers at all. It devalues the whole 'describe your character' central feature of character generation, if that becomes so markedly subordinate to post hoc numbers juggling on the one hand, and keyword design on the other. The two having equal status was barmy enough, the keyword automatically being _better_ is just silly. (And equally I think the same applied to abilities _not_ in your cultural keyword, this situation merely serves as a handy reductio ad absurdum.)
And note that your "also" is redundant, and might as well be an "instead". (Or more precisely an "ought to have known better, not bother wasting your time or your words quota, but rather".)
> Just in case you haven't read that chapter recently, here's a refresher:
Gee, ones posts entirely uniformedly in one thread, and some people just won't let you forget it... ;-)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail