David Cake:
> Well, this is arguing against the proposition that Close
> Combat should be declared "broad" in the rules, and all the rules
> then organised on that basis. Which is, admittedly, probably a straw
> man proposition.
It's less arguing, and more heckling, frankly. If there was more argument in your argument, I'd find it less vexing...
Let's be clear about what this "declaration" and "organisation" would entail, since it seems to loom so large in people's minds. This is simply a matter, as far as the rules are concerned, of what ability tags appear in keywords; i.e., whether it appears as "Sword and Shield Fighting", or "Fyrd Combat", or "Close Combat". (One might pause to note how it appears at present.) Beyond that, it's simply a matter of a paragraph or two under the game mechanics chapter.
> I don't think anyone is really proposing such a worst case proposal.
Only Greg, Mikko and me, it would seem. And Greg has given himself plenty of wriggle-room... (Or room to be Rodericked, perhaps I should say... <g>)
> The mere existence of the broad ability concept, I have no
> problem with. Can't think of a single ability offhand that I would
> want to work that way, other than a couple of magic ones that already
> do, but I don't have a problem with that. Maybe I will think of some
> in the months leading up to its release.
That's something, at least. The case for _that_ seems to me to be so clear as to be startling, and I'm dismayed that so many people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Nice bathwater though it may be, he said, as his own metaphor becomes over-extended.)
Powered by hypermail