> 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.
Ooh, cranky Alex. I recanted of some ideas when people turned them into elaborate rules prescriptions. I actually thought we had more or less arrived at a rough consensus. I was obviously mistaken, I'll try some more.
Sorry for intruding this discussion from another forum over here, and sorry for obviously annoying Alex by the manner in which I did so.
>
>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.)
Nope, CC plus the appropriate weapon technique. If you think a particular weapons technique is particularly inappropriate for a character (ie from a very different culture), then over rule the 1 HP cost to gain a weapons technique. Change the improv modifier to be larger than the standard one. And so on.
> > 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.
You aren't the only reader, though - I may as well summarise the case against, not just the bits you are personally propounding.
Though when it comes down to it I think the objection to an overly broad application of Close Combat is essentially an argument from a simulationist perspective - the objection is that thats not how it works in real life, its not an issue that drastically affects either narrative or game balance.
> 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.")
Anything that concentrates on naming rather than game effects
and description is bad. As far as narrative problems are concerned, I
don't think
Close Combat (funky monkey kung fu) is any better or worse than
Ability Funky Monkey Kung Fu, or even Broad Ability Funky Money Kung
Fu. Something that encourages you somehow to note that Funky Monkey
Kung Fu includes your spectacular Mandrill Buttock Throw, Gibbon
Overhead Swing and Primate Grooming Hair Grasp, and gives some game
meaning to all these things, thus making the whole exercise
narratively worthwhile. Just how we do this is still under
discussion. But giving them a level of game mechanical importance
approximately the same as Feats or Spells seems roughly right, and
making them abilities in themselves seems overkill.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail