Too wierd?

[Hobbitboy]

Am I right in assuming that a character with the skill 'Close Combat (soggy noodles*)' is just as effective in fight as someone with the same amount of 'Close Combat (knife fighting)'?

Are some configurations (e.g. 'Woo potential lovers with fatal doses of poison' or 'Primal Scream debating technique') just too absurd to be allowed? Or is coolness (from the player's point of view) all that matters?

* Using a single soggy noodle in either hand as opposed to clutching a fist-full of them.

Thanks,

- John

[Different Games]

The weapons and armor section (page 78) gives bonuses and minuses for various objects used as weapons.

So a "medium" weapon is a +3. A light one is only +1.

Faulty or improvised ones can get a minus, as per the rules.

Since noodles are very faulty as weapons, (at least while soggy) the narrator is within her rights to assign, oh, say a -40 to them.

Mike Dawson

[Peter Nordstrand]

Unless, of course, you are participating in the traditional Noodle Fights of the Homaborang people who are living a blissful life deep in the Teshnan jungles.

[Mike Holmes]

What these too yahoos are saying is that the rules of HQ are silent on the matter, and this has to be a local decision. The rules will support either way of playing.

I personally go with the idea that all abilities are created equal, and thus, in theory the noodle man is the equal of the mighty halbardier (in fact I've gone so far as to actually eliminate equipment bonuses for non-special equipment - though I do leave the potential for improv modifiers). That said, I also monitor what my players take for "coolness" to start, so that silly stuff just doesn't get in. That is, I try to forge a community standard where the players will take abilities that seem to be on par with the others, generally, or that the players can all buy into.

A key to this is group creation. When somebody takes noodle fighting, players who don't want that to be the equivalent of their cool abilities should pipe up and say, "dude, that's silly." So it's not just a single player's idea of what's cool, it's everybody's idea of what's cool.

This way, you don't have to worry as much about modifiers and such, and everybody's cool with it. In the end what you find is that "Intimidating Beard" (an actual example from the odd abilities used list on the site), is, in fact, something that your players can buy into. That is, unless the player is buying something solely to break the game or be stupid intentionally, most abilities are acceptable for most players.

YMMV.

Mike

[Different Games]

Regardless of what Mike wrote above, it seems entirely reasonable for any Narrator to decide that soggy noodles are extraordinarily poorly made weapons, and thus would fall under the written rule on page 79 of the main rulebook:
"Higher and lower quality weapons and tools can alter the bonus..."

[Mike Holmes]

Um, where does any of what I said contradict what you're saying? I agree with you totally.

Mike

[NickHollingsworth]

soggy noodles are extraordinarily poorly made weapons ... Higher and lower quality weapons and tools can alter the bonus...

I beg to disagree. Noodles are by definition the correct weapons for Close Combat (Soggy Noodles). If a character has such an ability (which everyone has thus agreed to) its not your job to rain on his parade. You might at a pinch argue that some types of soggy noodles are by definition better than others, though frankly it would be pointless pedantry.

If you object to the concept don't allow the skill. If you want to limit the skill be strict about what constitutes reasonable grounds for buying an increase.

There is nothing about the skill that offends me per se. Choosing whether to allow it depends on the genre and on the feelings of the people playing the game. In a martial arts setting ala Warriors Of Zu Mountain it would be a perfectly functional skill.

[Mike Holmes]

Nick, are you saying that you'd never use an improv modifier on any contest based on the nature of the contest and what abilities are being used? I think Mike's option is pretty reasonable. For example, I think that it's reasonable to assume that an armed man has an advantage over an unarmed man, all else being equal, and that an improv mod (or the usual bonus rules for that matter), are a fine way of simulating this.

Or not. Again, my point has been that this is just one of those personal preference things. In point of fact, yes, for some players it's rather important for the narrator to give them such modifiers.

Mike

[Snowden]

Mike, I see your point but I'd be wary of the "all else being equal" part.  I think situational penalties/bonuses are a good idea, but would be wary of having them become expected and automatic.  If a player puts points into "Noodle Fighting," I would expect that they and the GM would try to figure out when "Noodle Fighting" would have a situational advantage over "Sword Swinging"!

[Mike Holmes]

I agree, but I see this from another perspective. Which is that your statement is always true. That is, the GM should always be looking to find ways to make each and every character cool in the context of his abilities. That means orchestrating things to where contests occur that highlight all of the important abilities (all abilities if possible over time) that the character has.

So, yeah, don't let penalties privilege any ability. But that's not precisely the same thing as saying that all situations are equal. Not by a long shot.

Mike

[NickHollingsworth]

Happy Christmas everyone.

I beleive that Mike D said that the noodles are an improvised or poor weapon and so should fall under the 'improvised or poor weapons get penalised' rule. I was saying that the skill requires soggy noodles and hence noodles are not poor or improvised items for this skill. This is the same as saying that halberd combat requires a halberd and so using it with a halberd is unlikely to trigger a 'poor or improvised kit' penalty.

I think people are actually applying a different penalty, the bad kit thing is a red herring. They are thinking 'soggy noodles should be at a disadvantage against halberds - halberds are always better'. I object to this approach even though it seems to make sense when reduced to this extreme comparison. If we were comparing dagger against halberd would we say one was better than the other? Its fair to say most sim games would give the halberd some sort of damage advantage; but really this is a symptom of the fact that sims do not actually simulate the world but only a simplistic and unrealistic reduction of the world.  If two opponents actually fight armed like this the better experienced and skilled will have the advantage; it has much less to do with the weapon and more to do with the fighters abilities. I believe that this is how the world really works. Once we consider the movie/story world this effect is exaggerated; kit becomes irrelevant fluff. So I reject any suggestion that some styles or weapons get and inate advantage and hence I also reject any inate disadvantages.

Would I give situational bonuses? Yep for different situations. I might give the dagger man a bonus if the narrative had established he was pressed up against the halberd man. I might give the halber guy an advantage if it was established that he had the dagger man at a distance. But neither of these are based on an assumption that one is inately a better weapon to have. I would probably only give these bonuses in an extended contest. In a simple contest the changing situations are all rolled up together and should probably be assumed to cancel out.

Incidentally I agree with Mike H: there should be no bonus or penalty for using the correct kit. Players should be dissuaded from even bothering to mention normal kit by being given no bonus for it. Only noteworthy kit should earn any bonuses and this should be because it has abilities that are paid for and work as normal. Not having essential kit should earn a penalty. The whole '+3 for an average sword' thing got tacked on to Robin Law's rules by other people fairly early on. This was because most of the playtesters/publishing crew had a long history of playing Runequest and other gamist/simmy games and had not yet shed that mindset. Its a mistake.