>From: Lightcastle <light_castle_at_...>
>
>You know? That little typographical change (writing things in a more
>affinity-like notation) helps me enormously. I may enforce that in the
>future. I probably wouldn't completely turn them into affinities (where
>nothing under the affinity can be used twice) but I probably won't allow
>augments from things you haven't put a point into.
That's going to lead to players putting one HP into most of the abilities just to get them on the map with the +2 (or higher if the starting keyword level is higher).
I personally have no problem with incorporating the lists of abilities for a character. I think it gives interesting depth. In any case, I don't like to let my players get away without indicating what their relationships are from their keywords and if they match the personality type for the keyword. That "tailorable" stuff is, I think, pretty important for defining a character.
On the general subject, there's this problem with keyword generality and specificity. Already you're expected to tailor your "Lismelder" character's Warrior keyword by indicating that he uses the typical Lismelder weapon. Basically every keyword is "local" to some extent, making the "what everybody has" concept a tad hard to apply at times. It certainly can't be what everyone in the world has, because somewhere there's some culture who's warriors don't learn to run, but to swim (mermen?). Any "global" concept is purely a construct.
I started a thread on The Forge a while back that went pretty long in discussing this, but I don't remember any specific recommendations that we came up with. My general rule has been to allow any ability to be in a keyword as long as the player gives some fun reasoning for why "everybody" in some group that has the keyword has this specific ability. Make them pay for the boost in creativity.
Mike
Powered by hypermail