>David Cake wrote:
>...
>> Keywords is just a shorthand for common combinations. You
>> could easily remove them from the core rules and the game would be
>> the same, just more cumbersome ie instead of writing 'he is a
>> warrior', you could write 'she is a warrior skilled in spear and
>> shield fighting, in riding horses
>...
>
>My point is that 'Hate Chaos' is a short-hand for the combination
>'Hate Broo', 'Hate Scorpion-men', 'Hate Dragonsnail', etc. All
>abilities are 'broad' or 'narrow' to some degree. A player might want
>an ability of ANY breadth: very narrow ('Hate Ox-headed Broo'),
>narrow ('Hate Broo'), medium ('Hate Chaos') or broad ('Hate the
>Living'), or any shade in between.
This is an issue, and an essentially involvable one I think, because it depends so much on your campaign, and what you want from your character. Which is also why its not an issue - it depends so much on your campaign and what you want from your character that it should generally come down to negotiation between you and your narrator.
In long term play, just don't put HPs into abilities you don't use.
But its essentially different from keywords. The issue of narrow vs broad goes hand in hand with what level of improv penalty you get. Keywords let you group together abilities that would not be useful for improv at all. You don't get to improvise Horse Riding from Boastful, but they are part of the same keyword. You also don't improve them together. Its purely a convenience for creating consistent characters. And a good one.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail