>It seems terribly simple to me. "Does it make sense to the players?"
An excellent rule.
>So two things at the level of "unarmed combat" would be viewed equally.
Yes.
I'd also like to point out that whether it's in the keyword may be a bit of a red herring. Maybe my Merchant character has Sword Fighting as an ability. Since I've made that a part of my character focus, it's just as relevant as Sword Fighting that happens to be grouped under a Mercenary keyword.
And, the specific ability rules work no matter whether you have umbrella keywords, HQ1-style keywords, or no keywords at all. The specific ability is favored because it tends to make games more interesting. To me, the only difference is that umbrella keywords are themselves broad abilities. (In the other two styles, you don't use keywords as ratings.)
>Look, I don't have Sartar. Personally, I wouldn't have put spear
>fighting in a Farmer keyword anyway.
IMO this has been pretty obvious as far back in publication history as King of Dragon Pass...
>And again, I'm saying that depends on the story you're telling. IF your
>heroes are fighting farmers, of course they shouldn't be punished for
>not training with a military unit. But considering one of the other PCs
>*is* from a military unit, presumably you don't want to undercut his
>niche too much.
The rule about non-present benchmark (p.51) covers that moderately well.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail