> Problems (all IMO) :
>
> * A lack of "realism" for skills like Close Combat
So? I'm not here for "realism". Show me the MGF.
> * Blandness & a lack of versatility in designing Super-Specialist NPCs or
> Heroes
> (*why* can't my Humakti specialise in Fighting the Undead to the detriment of
> my
> other Death magics, daddy ?)
If you want to specialize, get another ability that amplifies or emphasizes
your specialty (take "Hate Undead with Burning Fervor" and use it to get
augments).
OK, you can't normally augment magic, but I'm not sure that rule should be
applied without exception. Some Secrets allow it, and I can think of a few
other cases where it might work. Like this one.
> * Improvable balance between the magic systems and overall skills rules of HW
In which case I'd rather side with Nick and reduce the cost of magical abilities. Much simpler and cleaner, effectively reducing the amount of rules instead of adding more. That can't be wrong. IMO, of course.
(Note to Alex: I'm not HW-conservative. I have nothing against _changing_ broken rules, or even the slightly bent ones, as many of my previous postings should attest. I just don't like the idea of _adding_ more rules for no good reason.)
>> 2. As many have already pointed out, it will reduce the breadth of >> characters' abilities.
Huh? You didn't specify that argument in the first place, so I can't really guess how you think it applies here.
> This *is* a question of gaming style, though ...
No it most definitely is _not_, it's a question of Hero Point economics. If the basic skills (that most will want to improve) cost more, characters will on the average have fewer abilities that they're any good at. Unless you start escalating HP awards.
>> 3. From a minimaxing standpoint, getting more than two subskills is >> pointless - it's more economical to just buy up the basic skill.
Well, yes. My comment was directed at people who touted the proposal's virtues with examples like the one you give, seeing them as a good thing. I was just trying to say "That ain't gonna happen."
>> I think most abilities have the potential to be >> useful in most situations if you use your imagination.
It's more limiting because the implication is that abilities which aren't "broad", that you haven't paid the increased cost for, should have a "narrow" utility. It's telling the narrator to say "no" to more proposed uses of these supposedly narrow abilities. I feel the only two replies a narrator should have to give are "OK" and "Hmmm, describe that for me in more detail". In the second case, a bad description might finally warrant a "no", but you should try to train your players so that this doesn't happen too often.
> Similar even to my RQ house rules, which makes it *that* much easier for me to
> use HW instead.
I don't feel that making HW more like RQ would be an improvement.
>> Besides, even under the proposed system, the wannabee-combat monster will
> This isn't *just* about combat ; presumably a devotee could also improve a
> single Feat within an Affinity by +1 for 1 HP, etc...
Yes, but I fail to see much point in it. I can't think of any single feat I
prefer that much over others. Still, if you really want that kind of
specialization you could add it to the magic rules without disturbing the
rest of the system.
Oh, and another example struck me: Increasing a broad ability +1 and a
specialty +2 is the exact same cost (6 HP) as upping a normal ability +3.
So, absolutely no disincentive there.
> In effect, HW already has Broad & Narrow abilities in the Character
> Development
> Costs Chart, and if HW2 made that Chart less clunky than it is, it would be a
> *good* thing IMO.
Yep. Like I said, reduce the cost of magic. If you as narrator want to maintain control over character development, my suggestion would be to be somewhat restrictive with HP awards for free spending, and instead hand out more directed improvements based on role-playing. Say, if a hero willingly takes a bullet (or an arrow) to protect a friend, give an extra point in Brave or the like. That sort of thing.
OTOH, I do see the argument for why affinities should cost more. Some of them allow you to do much more than similar mundane abilities. For example, Movement can replace all of your skills at Running, Jumping, Climbing, Swimming, Sky-diving... ummm, well you get the picture. Spending 3 HP to improve Movement is cheaper than spending the points to increase all those other skills. It's just that spending 3 points in one lump sum is emotionally more difficult for players. And an affinity like Copying provides a counter-example of magic with very low utility in most games.
HOWEVER, Close Combat is nowhere near as broad in application as the Movement example. All CC lets you do is hit people. Sure, you can Hit People With Sword, Hit People With Axe, Hit People With Broken Bottle... but there's a definite limit to the possibilities here. I don't hold with the "CC lets you do anything vaguely combat-related" school of thought, though I can see how the name of the ability might be misleading. In fact, I think the game Hol has the right idea in naming combat skills: Pummeling With The Assistance Of A Large Object, Making Sharp Things Go Thru Soft Things That Scream And Bleed, or That Psycho Bruce Lee Shit. Which one do you think "Heortling Combat" resembles the most?
As for abilities like Strong, Tough or Smart, I don't see them as all that
problematic either. Strong might let you Lift Things, Push Things and even
Break Things, but so what? It could also be used as an augment for a lot of
other physical abilities, but again: so what? So can a lot of abilities. If
you think your players might have a tendency to 'abuse' these skills, a
better solution is to demand really good explanations of how they apply in
particular situations.
Of course, from a MGF POV, the best thing would be to discourage such
bland-sounding abilites from the start. It's more fun if the hero is Strong
as an Ox, Resistant to Pain, or a Logical Thinker, providing better images
to guide the use of these abilities. From this perspective, I'd even
encourage the players to modify the names of abilities they get from their
keywords, if it helps define the character better. But I won't penalize a
player for a lack of imagination by making him pay Hero Points through the
nose. I prefer gentler educational methods.
Powered by hypermail