Re: Re: Tricky situations List

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:52:01 -0700


>> For frak's sake
>
> "frak"? That's new on me.

Replaces a certain four-letter word that starts with "F" and ends with "K". Keeps the list clean and tidy and not as likely to be busted by the Potty-mouth Police.

And I don't even watch Battlestar Galactica, so it must have made its way into my subconscious through some other means...

> I know, it is upon that that I was elaborating slightly.

Read like a whole new "Hey, What about..." to me.

>> For frak's sake, people Read The Fine Book before you start
> suggesting fixes that are already incorporated in the rules.
>
> You mean me, don't you, not "people".

No, "People" I said, and "People" I mean. This entire thread has been riddled with "new ideas" that are already supported in the rules. Maybe not clearly specified and pointed out, maybe 100 pages apart, but there none the less. You, Sam and Jane are not the only ones to have [temporarily forgotten] [ignored] [not bothered to read the book] before suggesting "fixes".

> Losing the use of abilities isn't in the rules, neither is losing
> the use of a keyword. The rules are also quite vague (whether this
> is a good thing or no) on which abilities.

Losing the use of abilities is covered by reaching "Dying" in a contest and appliying that penalty to "Romance", or "All Emotions" or "All physical activities" (depending on what makes the most sense).

Losing an entire keyword is I think) not a good option, because there are all sorts of different *types* of abilities in there - knowledges, personality traits, physical abilities, relationships, magic.

I apologize for snapping, I really shouldn't have; but the number of "fixes" that have been suggested that are already covered by the rules has been frustrating to read.

RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad R. Sabatini, Scaramouche

Powered by hypermail