> My present feeling is that HQ should be a set of tools for each group
> to customize as they require, not a single set of rules that everyone
> ought to feel obliged to follow. My impulse on special case armor
> rules is to explain why they're more trouble than they're worth--and
> then provide them in an optional sidebar, for the benefit of groups
> who can't get their heads around the idea that they're not needed.
While I generally agree with you as to equipment bonuses, Robin, I have a hard time with this sentiment.
If you are presenting a set of tools, you don't put value judgements on which is "better" or "worse", or which are "more trouble than they are worth". Tools are neutral. If you want to attach two objects to each other, which is the "best" way: nails, screws, bolts, glue? Each has their uses, their good points and bad points. Each is "better" *in a particular circumstance*. The same with a toolset of rules.
For some people, Armor and weapon and other equipment bonuses are "better" - they are fun and don't break suspension of disbelief. For others, they want it all folded into the ability. And fwiw, the same goes for different rules for magic - some people want a single simple way to use it, some want more.
Adding *your* particular viewpoint on the appropriateness of a rule makes it less than a tool kit. If an "optional" rule works better for me than your preferred method, then who is wrong?
Bin the personal preferences, Robin. Present rules without "value" judgements.
RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad
R. Sabatini, Scaramouche
Powered by hypermail