I'd encourage it too, but try to keep some sensible strictures (realism?) else it'd go a bit potty. i.e. I'd want a very very good explanation of it (he says, sounding stern, hardly ever having run a game in his life) and then I'd love it.
This puts me in mind of a scene in the book I'm reading, which I think does this in a subtly different, and very good way. It's George RR Martin (excellent books, BTW). The two actors are basically a massive mediaeval greatsword-wielding, iron-clad knight, and a Yelmalian. It would be an extended contest (actually trial by combat, the two as champions). The former attacks the latter with sword, the latter defends with spear and shield or with Quick, or something. So, fine. The latter, in turn, "attacks" by repeating, over and over again, the fact that the other raped, murdered and so on, some relatives. The first doesn't have any remorse, but his defense, let's say, is a bogstandard, getting bloody annoyed at the repetition, until he flips somewhat, and loses his cool.
The critical thing here, I think, is that the attack is a nonconventional one, but is augmented by his spear and shield combat. Thus, when he DOES score a critical, in game terms, it is hamstringing his opponent rather than upsetting him. Makes very good sense to me.
So, your scholar using his bemuse won't be looking to harm the foe, unless there is a blade or similar in there somewhere. I think the actor's aim is important.
So, Muhammad Ali defended with his "Float like a butterfly". Let's say he attacked with his "Sting like a bee" and both ratings were augmented by his boxing. Say his opponents were forced to defend with their Quick rather than their Boxing, giving Ali the advantage. So, how do you play the game to encourage those skills rather than just weighting Boxing skill?
Powered by hypermail