Re: Broad categories, Hunting

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:03:19 -0000


Greg wrote:

> I think you are mistaking Hunter, a Key Word that has many skills,
> with Hunting, a skill.

I am not. Your skill of "Hunting" is an ability that Hunters don't get in their key word. I'd suggest a clued-up Narrator would notice this and disallow it (as being overly broad), rather than adding a new category of "broad skills" covering all the related professional abilities in every keyword (or whatever they're meant to do).

Now, if I'm writing up an NPC, I can say he's a Heortling (15) Hunter (5w1) Odayla initiate (20), or whatever. In part, that's the same as saying "He has all the Hunter keyword abilities at 5w1, but don't sweat about the details." It doesn't mean that the same shorthand would be useful for writing up all PCs.

>> (Alternative: if you allow character keywords as single write-in 
>> abilities, what do you do when a player wants "Warrior" as an 
>> ability: not the expensive keyword, just a one-word cheapo skill?)

> Warrior is not a skill, it is a key word.

Hunting is not a defined ability in Hero Wars, either. Hunters (key word) don't get Hunting (ability). This suggests to me that you shouldn't allow players to invent Hunting (ability). And that a narrator who does allow Hunting (ability) might also allow Warrior (ability), or Bureaucrat (ability), or any other abominations which are already well covered by keywords and DO NOT NEED "broad skills".

> Petty arguments. I was using the point to show that Heortling
> combat skills are different from Pentan ones, for instance.

Yeah, that's (a) detailed in the bit in brackets, and (b) implicit in their cultural keyword already. For the record, I like the proposal that existing "broad" abilities (Close Combat, Affinities, Grimoires) can have specialist sub-abilities within them --

     Close Combat 17 (fyrd combat, sword & shield +3)
     Movement 5w1 (Run Up Cliffs +2, Sunset Leap +5)

But inventing Broad Skills to solve the problem of "Hunting" ability (which doesn't exist and shouldn't IMO be allowed) is OTT.

> Judging from other discussions on the list it seems that many
> people DO think that Close Combat as a single (not broad) skill
> DOES include karate, rapier with swordbreaker, broadsword and
> shield and sharpshooting.

Weirdoes :-) Can't we put them right in the text, without screwing up the elegant simplicity of the rules system? Robin's early drafts had some good bits about running players with overly-broad uber-abilities (Tough, Smart...) which didn't make it into the final edit.

> MOST IMPORTANTLY though, the broad category is applicable to
> things like Strong or Smart, which have multiple applications
> as a modifier.

Yeah, for this, it'd be cool. But why drag the non-existent "Hunting" ability into it as your prime example of What's Wrong With Abilities? (Or any of Roderick's examples: Carpentry, Seduction...). Stick to arguing your case from Strong, Tough, Smart, etc. and you'll make a better argument.

Cheers, Nick

Powered by hypermail