? Replace the number 1 in the cost of improvement with the number x (where x is an integer greater than 1).
What rule needs rewriting?
>certainly not clear to me it's in any way a "simpler" rules change
I don't really follow. It is simple because no change needs to be made aside from one number in one table. Characters start with a number of cultural weapon subskills for free.
>to manage than is Issaries's suggested ploy. To make a "style"
>cost more than an outright new ability would doubtless cause yelps
>of protest; and it's not clear that doing so would even adequately
I'm not advocating it. I merely asserted that it might be a better fix to get a simulationist outcome (which I have no particular desire for). [Assuming all the while that existing rules and guidelines such as improvisation modifiers, roleplaying training etc. are not ignored].
I most definitely did not argue that such a fix is either called for or the best possible fix out of the whole space of possible game mechanics.
>distinguish, in our hypothetical case, such utterly different "styles"
>as have been suggested, since in the long run the cost of increasing
>just one ability is so much less than that of increasing two (much
>less one "broad" ability).
I'm less convinced here. I'm not convinced that master fighters in real life were unable to adapt to new weapons to any marked degree with sufficient training or practice. The question is more likely how much practice or training?
Thom
Powered by hypermail