Re: Re: broad abilities

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:21:11 -0700


> The only justification would seem to be some minimaxing game balancy
> thing - CC is so damn useful that it should be more expensive to
> encourage characters to develop other skills.

Well, it's not extraordinarily useful in *all* campaigns. It won't help plow or farm, brew beer or win at politics, win a war* or forge a peace. It won't help you woo a maiden, love a family or cure the ill. You can't hug a child with (Close combat) arms. All you can do is hurt things. The weapons and fighting styles are *tools* to accomplish a limited task, not different tasks that can be accomplished. You might as well make Seduction, Carpentry or Debate into "Broad" skills: Seduction (Good looks, Charming Manner, Large Bulge in Pants), Carpentry (Hammer, Saw, Chisel, Plane), Debate (Logic, Argumentative, Spurious Reasoning, Reducto ad absurdum...)

Truely broad skills should allow you to perform/augment many different tasks. Strong can be used in almost any large physical activity ("I augment Close Combat with Strong to hit harder". "I augment Plow with Strong to break up clods and rocks", "I augment Carpentry with Strong to carry heavy timber", "I pick up my fallen comrade using Strong", ...), Smart can augment almost any mental skill, etc.

*A Hero's Battle might win a battle, but it would be extraordinary circumstances if it won a war.

My personal opinion, not necessarily that of Issaries Inc. RR

Powered by hypermail