Nick Brooke:
> Alex boils it down nicely:
>
> > 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;
Given the precedent of Affinities, I don't see that Broad Abilities are adding a huge swathe of extra rulesage; to at least a degree, they're "regularising" the current position.
> and (2) this is already well covered by the
> existing sets of cultural, occupational and magical keywords (*),
> which serve as good examples.
Of course, but the point here is, what that "benchmark" should be. (i.e. which is the "ordinary" breadth of ability: Hate Black Oak Clan, Fyrd Combat, Smart, Do Everything?) Making CC a "broad" ability would certainly be a significant such change, but it doesn't require anything different in kind by way of "documenting" it. (The argument that, for example, one would suddenly need a "complete" list of all possible combat skills is a total red herring.)
Powered by hypermail