> 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?)
The first two sound "right" to me: Hate Black Oaks is pretty "broad" (there's a *lot* of situations where you could use it as an augment, and many others where you couldn't), while Fyrd Combat is, of course, currently a subset of the single Close Combat ability (but I wouldn't want to get any broader or narrower than that as a defining breadth).
I would frown on and penalise attempted overuse of "Smart," (or use Tim-like trickery to marginalise it), while I'd ban "Do Everything" outright (unless there was a valid reason to allow it for an unusual NPC or 'high concept' PC).
I think Greg's posited "Hunting" fits about half-way through the list: it's obviously abusive (as there's a whole occupation keyword full of Hunting abilities), but it's not unreasonably broad (so long as the Narrator balances the one-trick pony of "Hunting" against any PCs, NPCs and scenario challenges which are aimed at a broader-based Hunter character).
> (The argument that, for example, one would suddenly need a
> "complete" list of all possible combat skills is a total red
> herring.)
I agree. But a cheap Close Combat skill with Narrated improvisational penalties for any weird-ass stuff still works well enough for me. What situation observed in game-play has led you to want a different approach?
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail