Re: Re: Broad Abilities

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:11:17 +0100


Tim Ellis wrote:
...
> I think any attempt to treat some abilities as being some sort
> of "meta" ability is doomed to add complexity and only raise more
> questions than it answers (If you don't allow "Hunting"
> because "Hunter" is a key word, but do allow "Singing", what do you
> do when some future product has a "Singer" key word, for instance)
...

I agree. IMHO, Any rules (rather than game-world consistency constraints) that mean the Narrator must say no to a chosen ability name are bad. Yes, I do mean it; see my previous posts on the 'Stop Time' and 'Dragonslaying Swords' threads.

> Having "Close Combat" as a catch all category is definitely a feature
> rather than a bug - but one that is easy enough for individual GM's
> to extend if they feel it necessary.

Our gaming group has warrior heroes and non-warrior heroes. Nobody has expressed dissatisfaction with Close Combat being a catch-all category.

Powered by hypermail