> From: gamartin_at_...
> > 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 can quibble whether "culture" is the most appropriate level of breadth here, but that's _precisely_ what HW doesn't do (or doesn't make explicit that that's what it's doing, if that's the intent). If one "Close Combat" ability _isn't_ the same as another "Close Combat" ability, then by implication: a) they are each more narrow (to a greater or lesser degree) than "that ability which covers all possible hand to hand combat", and b) wouldn't it have been a darn sight clearer to have called (at least one of) them something different from "Close Combat"? (Which I challenge anyone to thing of a more dull-as-dishwater tag than.)
(I'm ignoring here the issue of styles/specialisations, I know, which is a redeeming feature of the existing system.)
Powered by hypermail