David Cake:
> If you want to put an optional rule set into the main rules
> so people can choose to use it, fine but silly - might as well put
> them on a web page. But I want the choice to keep the published rules
> working properly.
Aside for the unevidenced, ludicrous overstatement that this represents, it also ignores the obvious "counter-fix" if you really _hate_ the idea of broad abilities in all their forms (oops, apart from affinities, and grimoires -- never mind), which is simply to as a narrator to declare all proposed abilities either "narrow", or disallowed outright, as at present.
gamartin_at_..., replying to me:
> > 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.
>
> Nobody said they should not be differentiated, just that they should
> necessarily be differentiated mechanically.
The suggestion is surely to differentiate them by tag, as chosen by the player, in (otherwise) grand HW tradition. How is this "mechanically"?
Powered by hypermail