> There are two quite separate issues here: is the idea of some
> abilities being "broader" than others a valid one, and does it
> merit some degree of rules support; and what "benchmark" should
> the rules set in what's the norm for the "breadth" of abilities.
I think (1) the observation is valid (if blindingly obvious), but does not in itself necessitate any additional rules, only better guidance for Narrators; and (2) this is already well covered by the existing sets of cultural, occupational and magical keywords (*), which serve as good examples.
Further to (1), a few examples of "ability abuse" and how to sort it out could cover this easily. If a player is leaning on one broad uberability to excess, the Narrator can cut it out from under them (with hefty improv. penalties and the like). I was *very* taken by Tim's Smart Test at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hw-rules/message/9637, BTW. Cheers, Nick
(*) I am, of course, aware that keywords are not abilities. Keywords *contain* abilities: lots and lots of them. Some are broader, others more narrow, but by looking at them we do have a de facto "standard set" to muck around with. Why do I mention it? I can't remember...
Powered by hypermail