Thanks, Aaron!
> This is a cheap (or free) way for a Narrator to ensure that every character
> in the campaign has basic proficiency in these unrelated but common
> Abilities. Once the package is purchased though, each Ability must be
> improved separately as there is no "Citizen of the Galaxy" Ability in play.
Okay, I can see that as a bookkeeping convenience, basically. Gotcha...
On a tangent, though, why wouldn't/couldn't there a Citizen of the Galaxy ability in play? If you have taken the time to conceptually link a handful of abilities into the keyword, so everyone knows what is considered conceptually part of Citizen of the Galaxy, how is that different than any other broad ability? It covers the basic skills you use every day in a life in the Republic. Other broad abilities like Farmer or Paladin or Jedi Knight can have just as many diverse elements within them, and they are (I think) valid abilities by RAW. So what makes your example of Citizen of the Galaxy less of a candidate for Abilityhood than something like Jedi Knight, which presumably incorporates equally diverse abilities like Acrobatics, Meditation, Negotiation, Philosophy, Lightsaber Training, etc.? Is it just Narrator fiat, or are there guidelines on defining abilities that I'm not getting?
Hmmm... Maybe Jedi Knight, Farmer and Paladin aren't "good" candidates for abilities either. Maybe they should all be keywords too, although that just leads into a recursive loop. I need to give this some more thought.
> Umbrella Keywords both
> encourage specialized Abilities and thematically-strong characters by
> allowing both broad competencies and specialized Abilities to be increased
> at a decent rate without falling behind.
This is the part I'm still not sold on. Let's use your example:
> Amazing Spider Powers 13W2
> -Webslinging +5
> -Spider Sense +8
> -Wall Crawling +1
> -Acrobatics +4
Let's arbitrarily say that the starting value when creating super powers was for Amazing Spider Powers was 10W2, and the rest was bought. The exact amount doesn't matter, it could be 5W2 or 1W or whatever, the basic math will follow the pattern below, and the lower the initial value the more pronounced the effect would be. So for this example, I'll assume a 10W2.
If my math is right, that means he had to pay 6 points to go from 10W2 to 13W2, then +5 for Webslinging, +8 for Spider Sense, +1 for Wall Crawling, and +4 for Acrobatics, or 24 points total. In exchange for that 24 points, he got one general broad ability (Amazing Spider Powers) at 13W2, and higher values in four more specific abilities. Cool.
Now, let's build a Spidey Clone using just the broad ability, also starting at 10W2 and applying the same 24 improvement points to it. Again if my math is right, he'd end up with Amazing Spider Powers 14W3. Even with a severe penalty for being a broad ability, that is still noticeably higher than the real Spiderman's score, even in a contest of webbing or spider senses specifically.
Now, I recognize this might be considered a very min/maxing approach, and I'm not encouraging/endorsing that. I guess my concern is that the umbrella keyword (and broad abilities in general) is implemented in a way that seems to fail to support it's intended purpose, where the mechanic actually encourages the opposite: broad abilities and min/maxing. From a strictly game-mechanic point of view, I cannot think of a reason to buy an umbrella keyword.
Now, HQ is not intended to be a simulation system; I get (and like) the focus on story, and maybe it just isn't a big concern to the target audience. Or maybe I'm still missing something. :-)
Either way, the rules do give me the option of advancing umbrella keywords at the same rate as any other broad ability without even needing a house rule, so I'm not really concerned or bothered. I'm confident we'll find the right balance for our group. I'm mostly just curious, trying to see if I'm missing something, or if it just comes down to a judgment call / matter of personal taste.
Thanks again for your time and thoughts! Lindharin
Powered by hypermail