> Ooh, cranky Alex.
Sorry, sorry. Day two of caffeine withdrawal!
> 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.
Possibly so; I may be unfairly "picking on" you due to the rather frustrating and disappointing (lack of) outcome of the whole process. If there's genuine interest on this list, I'm not unutterably opposed to discussing the details of some proposed solutions here, but I'm not sure that'd be especially useful, at this remove.
> >What's "particularly way out", if CC is any CC is all CC? [...]
> 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.
But that _is_ to differentiate between "different Close Combats", and to call them, nay, to _insist_ that they all be called the same thing is to needlessly obfuscate and blandify them all together.
> Anything that concentrates on naming rather than game effects
> and description is bad.
Naming is the first act of description, not something in opposition to it. (As survivors of "feat description" debates will surely assent.)
> 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
It is, however, with Close Combat [Funky Monkey Kung Fu, Sartarite Shinty, Equally Silly Other] that the problems of narrative credulity really start.
Powered by hypermail