> 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
> (or for each class of ability, if this eminently logical rules change
> survives the abuse it's getting on this list). That is, after
> all, all the published material does, as regards player-described
> abilities.
To throw my hapenniesworth into the ring...
The benchmark question is the real awkward one, and I feel needs
answered
first. I'd agree that Close Combat (or whatever variant you
prefer(1)) is
a red herring here. In sessions I've run where combat is important, the
Humakti's combat skill has indeed been very important. In sessions
without
any combat, it has been irrelevant, and instead the diplomacy skills
(for
example) of the lawspeaker and/or the Ernalda Peacemaker (can't remember
real name) priestess have dominated. How 'broad' it is depends entirely
on
your own episode preferences.
The problem is that nearly all skills fall into this category. Any skill that gets used several times a session is 'broad' in the close combat sense. I can't see how this COULD be defined in a rules sense, at least without leading to more arguments than it solves. After all, few of us would define 'sing' as broad, but someone out there has a character that uses it ten times a session...
Other 'broad' skills people have suggested ('smart', 'strong', etc.) are also, I feel, red herrings. Smart has almost no direct applications, and strong few. I have two characters with such skills (one 'Strong', the other 'tough as an ox'). Neither uses them much directly, but uses them reasonably often to augment other abilities. Okay, there is a broadness here, but given the cost of raising the ability the five HP needed to add the extra +1 to the augment, I feel the broadness is already penalised enough.
Those who insist on using such skills directly can take two actions. If you plough using 'Strong' instead of 'Plough' augmented by 'Strong', for example, you should (a) suffer a hefty penalty (-20? why not?) and (b) suffer dire consequences for failure (minor defeat - broken plough?).
Encouraging that sort of behaviour in the second edition should be plenty.
In my opinion.
To summarise, I'll support a change in the rules when anyone can actually quote a situation where the current rules can't handle it, which isn't clearly pathological, and which could be used as a basis for a rule that actually does define and solve the problem.
Cheers,
Graham
(1) I have never liked 'Close Combat' and insist on proper weapon
skills,
with improv modifiers for other related skills. CC always seemed an
unnecessary rules clutter to me. The difference in practice has been
almost negligible...
-- Graham Robinson The Stableyard - Internet Solutions gjr_at_... http://www.thestableyard.net
Powered by hypermail