> > Probably about the same. I'm wary of making it too broad or
> > differenntial. Currently, we have a relatively simple system. But
if
> > a character has a broad skill 'strong' or 'wide travelled' I
impose a
> > penalty for more specific usages of the 'parent' -- such as 'arm
> > wrestling' or 'what IS in RuneGate'
>
> I wonder if part of the motivation in having "broad" abilities cost
> more is a) to rationalise the existing cost of Affinities as an
> instance of such, and b) to fix the obvious bug that the useless
> and expensive abilities mystics get aren't expensive (or useless)
> enough, by making them pay triple for their disciplines.
It might be. But it recall that nested skills worked reasonably well in Shadowrun but it is subject to abuse. The problem is when do these things get too broad? I don't mind them costing just one and I'm willing to let a player buy a 'bonus' within that ability (Eg: Strong and 'Arm Wrestling') if they want -- but on things like Strong or (this one's the worst for wide applicabillity) Tough, I give an improv penalty.
> > We found, in play, that making Close or Ranged combat more
expensive
> > means that players will just spend points on them and not on the
fun
> > stuff like relationships, followers, Drink Copiously, swindle,
What Is
> > In Runegate Anyways, and Explain To The Wife.
>
> That'd be unfortunate: I assume the hope is more the reverse!
It is unfortunate. But when you only have 4-6 HP a sesson and combat costs 3... welll.... I cann't say as I don't blame the heroes.
Especially when quite a few of the narrators here seem very stingy with HP.
> Between some rather decent Scotch donated by some public-spirited
> (sic) individuals, the dunkel hefeweiß, and Ryanair losing not my
> luggage, but me, on the way home, I think "we" just about managed
the
> second, at least!
>
> Unreconstructedly,
> Alex.
I think you qualified for 'ability used in session' for Tough.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail