>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).
If you have Hunter PCs, but don't actually Hunt that often in your games, its no problem (Hunters still get to be sneaky, know about animals, know lots about the wilderness, and all sorts of other hunter stuff). Its all up to your game.
> > (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?
Actually, trying to deal with martial arts focused games. But I think any solution to that problem should be utterly optional. In practice, Close Combat + styles works great for the majority of games.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail