I was being enthusiastic :)
> 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".
But I *am* Sam. Sam-I-Am, Green Eggs and Ham. I'm not Jane, however, so you may have a point.
> 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).
Okay, yes it is. But then, I don't recall this ever occuring, so such penalties are maybe not as common as they could be.
> Losing an entire keyword is I think) not a good option...[snip]
Oh I agree, but I was saying that more in the manner of chucking an
idea out in case it bounced back smelling sweeter. But it bounced
back all frakked up.
> 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.
I can imagine that it has been. I've been viewing it more as a brainstorming exercise, however. If people rediscover bits they've forgotten then that's good, isn't it? (I'm always surprised you reply to people giving page references, unless they're newbies. I'd just say it's in the book.)
I also don't think (a) you should apologize for snapping or (b) that frak is actually very snappy. I mean...
The One True Sam-I-Am
Powered by hypermail