>> Suddenly, we have
>> the issue of defining what should be broad, and what narrow, on
>> somewhat arbitrary grounds
>No more abitrarily than one has to assess what's "too broad" at
>present, for purposes of disallowing abilities, or assessing
>penalties, which is the current "solution".
No, somewhat more arbitrarily, as argument has demonstrated. And is harder to back out of.
> > introducing a whole slew of game balance questions
>Au contraire, a mechanic is being added to deal with "game balance"
>(or ability balance, if you will) issues. If one feels the need to
>use them, one presumably does so feeling some sort of need. But if
>one ignores them entirely, I can see no drastic consequences, since
>it simply brings us back to the current situation.
Well, if its merely an arbitrary option that is suggested, but never ever mandated for any ability ever, yes. Discussion rather seems to suggest, however, that the single commonest and most used ability in the game is about to triple in cost, and be unnecessarily complicated, and for an encore most of the simple and commonest abilities (strength etc) ruined.
> > and we also add in the complication of introducing major
>> game mechanic changes between editions.
>Again, _what_ game mechanic changes?
well, it its just a concept, sure. If, however, its becomes the actual rules for Close Combat, its a big change.
Obviously, my opposition will be a lot reduced if I can simply ignore the idea if it should make it into the rules, but it appears it is being considered for several core area of the game.
But to conclude, perhaps I overemphasised the complexity for the sake of a good line - but I do think it is a solution that complicates the game significantly for the sake of removing a problem that barely exists, and in the process tramples on several of the games better features.
Powered by hypermail