>To give an example from my own game, lest anyone think it's merely
>my delicate sense of game-mechanical aesthetics: I described an NPC
>weaponthane, Alynra Speardottir, as being the best bare-fist fighter
>in the clan (it being evident from context that she wasn't ordinarily
>the best at "close combat"). This caused some eyebrows to be raised,
>since "by the book", combat skill don't work in that manner. Now,
>is that a clear, legitimate example of game mechanics tripping up
>narrative?
A very large Barehanded Combat ability, with which to augment her Close Combat ability? OK, so its a little lame in actual execution for PCs (NPCs, of course, don't have to actually pay for it). Suffers somewhat from the current problems with augment - to get a guaranteed +1 requires a 5w or so (much less if you are willing to take a large risk, though).
Sumo and shinty aside, I certainly do want the rules to recognise that in general a character who is competent with weapons is nearly as good barehanded, or with a weapon they grab in combat (presuming its relatively standard, not a gami or something). So where there is a big difference between these abilities, I'd rather handle that as a special case, possibly one that doesn't make much sense in a minimax sense.
Though I do see your point. Cheers David
Powered by hypermail