Thom Baguley:
> ? 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?
The one you just rewrote, above...
> >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.
Much the same could be said about Issaries' "rumoured" (I saw the man's lips move, mind you) rewrite -- hasn't stopped it being "vilified up the wazoo", has it?
> >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).
Since, then:
then the above suggestion looks slightly orphaned, all round.
> >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?
If you like, though that's to put it once again in expressly "simulationist" or "realist" terms. (And every time a broad abilities advocate responds to same, it's instantly assumed _they_ are making a simulationist argument, perversely.)
To recast it a little: if a heroic-level master of the sword decides to become a heroic-level master of Kralori sumo, isn't that more significant to the story than if a neophyte swordsman does?
Powered by hypermail