> You're on record as bringing up the "cementing" distinction, which I
> was here specifically attempting to dispose of. If you have some
> fresh point to make which does _not_ reply on this distinction, I'd
> be pleased to see it.
??? I was addressing the pricing.
> That is quite manifestly not what the rules describe themselves as
> modelling. The rules are intended to support description of the
> _narrative_, not to model the world in any other sense. Thus the
And that is exactly what they do. As I pointed out above, the gaining oif a new technique in an old skill is not dignificant to the narrative either.
> question is more properly posed as, which sorts of narratives should
> be more expressly supported in the rules, ones in which there is
> very little distinction made between different fighting styles,
> different cultural traditions, and even different weapons, or ones
> in which this is made more of?
Well, we are going in circles, because I see plemnty of distinction. I'm not sure what it is that you think is missing.
> It's already been pointed out that these things _are_ often
significant
> in genre fiction in general; perhaps even more to the point,
Only when learning the skill is important, such as Luke's sojourn on Dagobah. At other times, it is utterly irrelevant, the weapon is just a prop.
> some of its actual _myths_, which seems to be a rather crucial
I can't viusalise how a myth could possibly impact on a game mechanical structure for recording combat styles. What is it that you mean?
> to ignore. "By the book" HW allows little taking account of Orlanth
> being the conquerer of all weapons, and Humakt the master of just
one,
> does it?
I have no idea. But all you arer descrtibing is limits to culturally available skills.
> I would largely agree, except that was being brought up by the other
> faction, in a tactic that struck me as being analogous to charging
Well then, what IS it that you want the system to model? I fear we are talking past each other.
Powered by hypermail