On the other hand having unrated items of equipment rather nicely covers the case of a hero who always has some sword or other to hand but is rarely concerned should it break, they lose it or whatever - they always manage to acquire another one before the next episode.
If they become especially attached to one particular sword or it happens to be used for some spectacular act that merits it getting a name then an option would be to start a new ability in the sword. The association with the hero and participation in a dramatic event has given the sword mythic (and narrative) significance that is worth tracking and which might become greater in later episodes, at the cost of 1HP to start the ability off (if it was episode relevant). If it somehow gets broken then the hero would now care enough about it to get it reforged between episodes, unlike in the old days when he would simply have got a replacement.
I do not see why the two models of ownership should be incompatible, it seems to me that both can co-exist quite happily in the same game at the same time.
> Can something become magical just be association with great people
> and great deeds? The Angle Saxons thought so, with their concepts of
> heirloom treasures (laf, mathma).
Sure, of course it can. Not every item belonging to every hero should be important however. Sometimes a broadsword can be just any old broadsword.
-- Nic
Powered by hypermail