>>> This *is* a question of gaming style, though ... >> >> No it most definitely is _not_,
OK, terminological differences here: I would call this "design philosophy", not "gaming style". But my answers to your questions would be "Yes", "No" and "Why confuse them even more?"
> keeping the current state of the RPG market in mind, and the desire to make HW
> more
> popular and more profitable, without dumbing it down
I'm not going to touch that one. I don't think it's an appropriate element to inject into this discussion.
> I am attracted by the idea of a mechanic to encourage a smaller number of
> skills on
> the average HW character sheet.
Well, we definitely disagree on that, then. I'm attracted to character sheets with lots of funky skills on them. Even if some of them never see any practical use, they help define the image of the character.
> I like the idea that HW characters should be encouraged to specialise : I
> really
> hate the old RQ2-style jack-of-all-trades adventurer.
I'm not sure how fewer skills equals more specialization? At least if these fewer skills are also 'broader'.
> but I don't think there's any getting rid of the idea. It needs to be dealt
> with, somehow.
Yes, by sealing it with an Elder Sign. ;-)
> if characters had fewer skills on their character sheets, then players would
> actually have to be *more* creative with their characters, not less !
Do you have playtest experience to support this? If all the abilities are broad, boring ones like Smart or Tough, I have a feeling that players would routinely apply them to all mental or physical problems, respectively, without giving the matter much creative thought. At least that's how other RPGs work...
>> Still, if you really want that kind of >> specialization you could add it to the magic rules without disturbing the >> rest of the system.
OK, if you feel that way then don't. It's not an idea I'm married to anyway.
> This specialisation idea is a natural
> development from the game system, and simply *needs* to be addressed by the
> rules text.
All right, maybe "specialization" in a general sense needs to be addressed, but nothing says you have to address it with this specific proposal. In my last post I threw out a different idea about specialization, which you declined to comment. I'm sure there are others.
> Changing subject a little ? Well, OK !
Well, my train of thought led to becoming my own devil's advocate...
> TR and ST seem to suggest that the titles of the affinities are a bit
> misleading ;
> that the "Movement" affinity of this god isn't really the same as the
> "Movement"
> affinity of that one. Something else that HW2 could make clearer ?
>
> I would certainly discourage such over-use of "broad" affinities ...
Yes, no Movement affinity lets you do _anything_ Movement-related right off the bat. But if you spend some time and energy collecting new feats you might eventually reach a pretty good level of breadth.
Powered by hypermail