Re: Broad Affinities

From: gamartin_at_...
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:08:38 -0000

> and if anything described more concisely and evocatively. (What
> narks me most about "Close Combat" and the innumerable "Combat"
> affinities is their sheer, pointless _colourlessness_, in a game
> which is crucially dependent on snazzy description.) One would

Whoah, I think it does exactly the opposite. Any old game can have a "combat" skill or a "sword" skill or even a spear-and-shield skill. But because HW makes these cultural abilities rather than ones which could or do occur in anyone from anywhere. A close combat skill is a close combat skill, but that practiced by culture A and that practiced by culture B can feature huge differences.

One difference I feature is operational doctrine. A method of combat describes more than just the tools to hand and how they are used, but also armour and tack, how much gear you carry, how you understand length of service, field manouvre, etc. Sometimes a combat methodology can be a really intense psychological experience, and especially in the HW context, heavily wrapped up in theological concerns.

I think that the ability system allows a huge amount of narrative description that simply did not exist in the more mechanical, determinist systems. You not only know how relatively effective a character is (the value of the rating) but also the style of combat, the origin, all sorts of tacit supporting info. It has place, purpose - it is much more than an abstraction of a bit of training or a physical aptitude.

Powered by hypermail