Re: Weapon Rank question

From: Alexandre Lanciani <alexanl_at_...>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:17:25 +0200

Mikko Rintasaari wrote:

> I'd keep the ranks. HW has precious little detail as it is.
>

        Mmh... IMHO HW has just how much detail you want it to have. OK, the system doesn't quite help you, but neither does it hamper you (like D&D does). One could say that games who take care of 10 seconds of action with a simple roll are actually less detailed. If you want, you could play a HW fight blow by blow (or debate sentence by sentence, or a flirt kiss by kiss, or a... ehm...)! ;)

        So for me it's not a question of detail, but more a question of

1. Bookkeeping: in the heat of the moment I usually forget about ranks.
2. Flexibility: if acting with a sword gives such a clear advantage, the player won't bother trying all the other nifty maneuvers that the AP system lets his character perform (such as jumping on a table, throwing sand in the opponent's eyes, retreating up the stairs and so on). And after a while he will run out of interesting descriptions, especially if he has never used a broadsword. After all, how many interesting ways there are to slice someone?

        At least this is my experience, maybe for you and your group it's different...

-- 
Regards,
Alexandre.
"Cinq Milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre,
Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?"