David Cake on affinity-"like" martial arts:
> Err, wot? Sounds like you are confusing a rough suggestion of
> mechanics with a magic system that happens to use them.
> And you have a fair idea of my actual martial arts mechanics
> ideas, so you know they are not close to theism in detail.
Sounded like a fairly "theism-like" suggestion to me, and one you'd made before in almost exactly those terms, IIRC. To be frank, though, my abiding memory of most of your MA suggestions was that none of them were especially detailed, and most of them you recanted of when push came to shove, so I wouldn't presume to know _what_ you were currently in mind of.
And the sub-topic I'm still struggling towards self-mastery on:
> Fair enough - add an extra improve penalty, and even an extra
> HP cost for adding a particularly way out ability.
What's "particularly way out", if CC is any CC is all CC? (If we can dispose of this extremist interpretation of the status quo, then we have at least a start.)
> Essentially, its an unsolvable problem, though - if we want
> to accurately simulate these issues in a streamlined narrative game.
> I don't.
> The alleged lack of realism in extreme cases of transference
> of skills is a problem that is a) far better than the opposing
> problem (and attendant lack of realism) introduced by most attempts
> to solve it
At no point did I involve the "realism" argument, please note. My concern is with avoiding the narratively ridiculous, and perhaps worse, the narratively dull. ("I don't care what funky character concept you have: write it down as Close Combat [trivial style differentiation], if you'd be so kind.")
Powered by hypermail