>From: "L.Castellucci" <lightcastle_at_...>
>
>Of course, finding out what the intent is is important. However, I thought
>when Antonio first posted this that he said this WAS a rewrite, which to my
>mind sounded like he had already tried to discuss the page 20 rule and ask
>the player to respect the social contract he intends and that the player
>chose to flout it. (I can be completely wrong about that.)
And actually you could be right. Adrian hasn't said whether or not the specific rule was mentioned or not. I'm only speculating.
>Personally, as I said, I think a lot of it is redundant, and I'd fold some
>of
>it into keywords
Yeah, I think some of it already is in the specific keywords selected, actually. Might have to use one of the "redundant" methods there, but ignoring the additional statements works fine.
BTW, while I agree that the character wouldn't be "overpowering" with all of the abilities listed, there's a better reason for Adrian to stick to his guns. Which is that the constraint caused by the reduction in abilities chosen makes for a more interesting character in the end, I believe.
What's interesting is that the player in question has been playing the character Octavian for a while now (lots of actual time, but it's PBEM, so not all that much game time). So we all have an idea of what the character is like. None of what he'd listed seems implausible to me.
BTW, on the subject of "Longswords" plural, I think that this is just an ability. Like "Big Muscles" in an ability list doesn't give one augment per muscle in the character's body. It's in no way a problem to indicate groups of things as abilities. Any more than it is to, say, have a relationship to a village instead of having to purchase each individual in the village (or each villager's muscle). You get what you "pay" for. One word description for "Longswords"? That's one ability.
Mike
Powered by hypermail