QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

I can see where you're coming from, but the arguement of 'people are too dumb to be really good at light AND heavy pistols' is..... kind of lacking. Its a blanket statement about metahumanity in general, disregards the actual specializations in question(because there's often overlap in the actual skills you apply while using a specialization), and provides no way for actually genuinely insanely smart people to actually BE smart enough, on their own, to 'be smart enough to two things simultaneously'.(Someone with, say, mental stats greater than any inventive genius in earth's history, like a force 7 spirit, or someone with massive brain augmentation). It just doesn't make sense to me.
You're kind-of agreeing with me really. Both our suggestions propose that not everyone is capable of multiple specialisations, but you're not focusing on where they differ. Yours proposes that superlative training in the specific field enables multi-specialisation, whilst mine proposes that the ability to multi-specialise is independent of the field like it were a discipline of it's own (albeit an unrated one). I'm not 100% behind my suggestion nor 100% against yours, but I'm interested to debate the matter at it's heart.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

As for the out-of-character rules, making it a quality is poor form for a few reasons: It doesn't need to be a quality. There's plenty of good qualities to fill your 35 points with already before adding MORE. Picking up qualities in play is unreliable, and gm-dependent. A lot of gms have a habit of denying any 'gm-approval' things without considering the implications. While its something cool, certainly, where it to be introduced, games already in progress wouldn't be able to make use of it('hey, this is cool and new, can I redo my character to have blank?' 'BUt we've already done three runs!').
I almost can't believe what I'm reading. You really take the view that the qualities listed should be treated as all-encompassing? I really can't accept the argument that adding one more is an inherently bad idea because there's enough choice already. Are you worried the players won't be able to make their minds up at chargen?
I'm unsure about the assertion that GMs deny approval-only options as a default decision. Certainly not true of me, or anyone who creates house-rules for that matter since that in itself is using (albeit usually player-approved) GM fiat.
And you think adding a quality three runs in is more contentious that changing the structure of the rules? Well let's face it, they're both rule-breakers in their own ways, but wouldn't all the players who opted for two 5s instead of a 6 at chargen feel cheated?
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

While I think we can both agree that its a neat concept, as a houserule(which it is, because there's no chance of the actual rules being changed), you have to consider how easy and smooth it is to introduce to your players. If its too complex, or annoyingly worded, or not printed anywhere, then people are going to forget about it, and it really doesn't make a difference - and thats not what you want.
Emphasis mine - your method isn't printed anywhere either. Remember that the objective was to enable players to multi-specialise when they want to so long as they have developed their character sufficiently, not to encourage them into doing so. A 'difference' is only required if a player wants it so they'll remember the conditions whatever they are. Adding it as it's own quality is more memorable than making rating 6 function differently to all the other ratings, I reckon.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

There's a big difference of tone introducing this thing to a game. Actually bringing it to a group, i'd imagine our two different versions -might- go something like this.
'hey players, i added this cool thing to the game. You can get two specs now, if you want, under certain conditions?'
'oh yeah?'
'yeah, but it'll cost you 10 or 20 karma to start.'
'10 karma? At least?'
'Yeah'
'You know i'm playing a mage, right?
As opposed to:
' than 'hey guys. We played a bit, and i've thought about it. If you have a skill at six, I'll let you take another spec at the usual cost.'
'You mean i can have dodge ranged AND dodge melee?'
'or spellcasting for health AND combat?'
'Finally! Exploit AND stealth specs!'
'...and all it costs is 2 karma and a high skill?'
'Yeah.'
'Dammit!'
'what?'
'Thats half a spell! You know i'm playing a mage, right?'
That's right, the poor under-powered(!) magicians have to make karmic sacrifices, but we're never going to fix that nor should we.
You left out a voice in the second example - the versatile mercenary with lots of mid-level skills but high attributes. No bonus for him, despite his superior experience in versatility and potentially-higher bp expenditure on skills. He's adept at all forms of combat but somehow not as good at specialising within them? Unsatisfactory IMO.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

No, if you're changing or expanding on one of the core game concepts - in this case, skills - then it belongs in the skills section. Shoehorning it into the qualities as an afterthought, and then trying to justify why its there instead of just changing the basic rules very, very slightly (seriously, is it a really big change?) doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I'd rather have an elegant, simple wording and ruling where possible - while new qualites ARE neat, it just isn't necessary in this case.
That could be said of plenty of qualities. What about Aptitude, which I assume you accept as it was cited in your proposal? Should that be disallowed for breaking the skills rules outside of the skills section? It's not a big change you're proposing, nor a necessarily bad one - I'd accept it on my table if it had popular support.
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Jan 3 2011, 01:18 AM)

It may be easier if you think about it in terms of 'what are you changing? How much should it cost? 'will it unbalance anything by giving people a lot more dice?' 'is there anything which has a similiar effect?' 'how much better is it than similiar stuff, and is it providing a niche role that wasn't there before?'
The logic starts to break down when you compare it to Aptitude. 10 points/20 karma? One skill only or all skills? If its all skills, does there need to be a minimum level to get two specs? Can you get the same spec twice? How expensive is it to get a skill at 1, the two specs you want, and never increase the skill again? Is it better or worse than ware with a similiar cost/effect?
While it may 'feel' better as a quality, its a can of worms once you start to dig into it. How, exactly, is it not in keeping with the rest of the game? I kind of think the 'one spec' thing is kind of an arbitrary limit, mostly designed to help prevent powergaming, but not really looked into once it was penned in - that, or someone at the design table made a highlander reference, and then everyone suddenly went "SPECIALIZATIONS! there can be only ONE!"
P.S. Do gaming groups even keep a list of houserules? Specially for stuff that comes up during play? I know mine doesn't, and I'm curious what other peoples experiences are.
It's not in keeping with the game because there's no other way in which the skill ratings have different implications. Saying 'I'll relax that restriction at rating 6' IS arbitrary and weights the appeal of rating 6 disproportionately. The difference between all the other ratings remains the same but now rating 6 distorts the curve.
Ultimately, if a player asked me what he needed to do to get a second specialisation I'd rather say 'learn how to do it and pay 10 karma' than 'train tirelessly for four months and spend 30 karma to become a leading authority in the field to get it at normal rates'. I mean, if they're currently rating 3 ("professional") and looking for a +2 bonus in a second application then making them gain a +3 bonus in ALL applications first is unlikely to satisfy them or their character concept.