> Agreed. I'm all for allowing Hunter or Warrior as abilities (rather
> than as keywords). But, of course, it must be done in a way that
> neither penalizes nor rewards. And preferably in a way that is
> backwards compatible.
Agreed, backwards compatibility is v. important. Not penalizing or rewarding, ditto. Can't agree with you re: "Warrior" as an ability: I'd frown severely on anyone trying this in a game, which should be deterrent enough. (NPC shorthand is a completely different matter).
But how about not adding a pervasive extra layer of complexity to an already elegant game engine? Let's resolve this "issue" by printing more guidance to support Narrators using the current system, not by introducing some clunky new mechanism for rating how subjectively broad or narrow each ability in every keyword might be.
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail