As frustrating as HQ2 can be sometimes, I've found that if everyone around the table groks that the system responds exceptionally well to "does this make sense to all of us" it tends to even out pretty well.
>
> >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.
>
Oh, absolutely. I don't consider keywords the focus/defining point of characters. They might be, they might not. I tend to use Umbrella keywords because it works as a sort of "refined broad ability". I do, however, consider all the abilities within the keyword to be "a use of the keyword" and not an actual separate ability. (This may be a personal quirk not supported by the rules)
> 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.)
>
I'm never quite sure what to make of the Keyword as Package thing. It seems more like a note-taking device than anything else. The "no keyword" approach does kind of prevent you from using a keyword as an ability - since there's no keyword. :)
>
> >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...
>
See. I'd put it in "Heortling", not "Farmer". That is ultimately a terribly minor point, I suspect. :)
>
> >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.
>
Exactly.
Powered by hypermail