> From: <gjr_at_...>
> The benchmark question is the real awkward one, and I feel needs
> answered first.
I agree it's the awkward one -- which is why I'm a little frustrated by a Large Angry List Mob that seems determined to kill off the entire notion of a mechanic for the _other_, much simpler and more straightforward syndrome, based on some fanatica; devotion to the pop-- err, to the idea of a "unitary" close combat ability.
> 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...
This is indeed true. There's nothing at all about this a game _system_ can do, other than give people the tools to try to address it on a per-campaign basis, which in large degree HW does admirably with its ability system. (The per campaign customisation being in the "subtle guidance" your GM gives you in what's "too broad", and what's not.) Not so good as it can't be improved, mind you...
On a per-episode basis, nothing one can do about it at all...
> 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
Trouble is, what's a "hefty" penalty in the middle of the scale is a totally rackmanite one at the bottom ("Oh. So I auto-fail. Bummer.") and acceptable losses at the top, if for example if my LM heroquester has managed to get by using few abilities other than "smart", and hence has pulled out a mastery-plus lead in rating on my less minimaxed colleagues.
I accept that these problems have Narratorly, and indeed Game-Group-Social solutions to them, of a more or less ad hoc nature; it would be a more aesthetically pleasing game to pedants like myself, and more to the point, an easier to run one for neophytes, if the mechanics stood a little more firmly by themselves and were a little less in need of such propping up. It's a balance, of course, but if we didn't need _any_ rules, we wouldn't be shelling out for HW in the first place...
> (b) suffer dire consequences for failure (minor defeat - broken
> plough?).
There's some logic to that, good point. (And a viable part-solution, done in moderation.)
I'm in danger of out-posting Jeff, and am probably getting a little monotonous, so am going to (try to) shut up on this issue, at least for a while. If I'm the only Steadfast Defender of the idea (apart from its anonymous originator?), you rampaging peasants can go burn the stead down. <g>
Powered by hypermail