David Dunham on (the lack of) longer feat descriptions:
> Is this under the assumption that there is such a list which was
> edited out for space? I've never seen descriptions in any draft (with
> minor exceptions on a feat-by-feat basis, similar to how berserking
> is described).
I think it's written on the assumption that in many cases there was more info in the author's head than ever went onto paper. (Even if was a straightforward as 'Swordhelp can act as an augmentation on any Sword Fighting type of ability'.)
> > Disruption (cause wound): This spell enables one to bid 7AP, and if
> > succesful causes a wound on the opponent.
>
> I think descriptions like this would kill the game.
Or avoid a lot of blank looks and bored stares during 'tedious' extended contests, perhaps.
I'm somewhat agog at what wonders lie in store for us in the Orlanthi Player's Book if it's _not_ going to have any more detail, whatsoever, on Orlanthi magic. Wasn't that one of its main stated purposes?
> Firstly, it's too
> constraining just in a mechanical sense (can you bid other than 7?
> What if you just want to defeat him by driving him to 0, rather than
> giving a wound? What if I'm running a character with 10 followers,
> could I bid 70 and do 10 wounds?)
It's only a constraint if you insist on reading it as a constraint. Why is generalising intelligently and imaginatively harder from a description with more information in it (mechanics or no) harder than generalising from one with very little info? Arguably, Mikko's suggestions are somewhat over-specific in their 'tone', but your attitude seems to be one of 'the less information the better', which perplexes me greatly.
> Secondly, you'd be swamped in them -- someone would have to remember
> the rules of each one (just as in most games).
Gasp, shock, horror. A player only has to worry about his own; the N. only has to worry about them to the extent that he wants to worry about them. (Playing fast and loose is always an option.)
> And it would stifle creativity. If the feat is "Cause Wound" pure and
> simple, you can bid what you want, describe it how you want, and use
> the contest results to see how well it worked.
You keep saying that David, and it keeps being not true. Everyone I've heard comment has suggested that feat descriptions, or even mechanics, be _instances_ of what you can do with a Feat, not a _constraint_ on what you can do with them. How does this stifle anything?
I also confess that I find 'bid what you want, describe it how you want' to allow a rather modest amount of creativity. Especially if the only effect of that description can be a sit-mod, and there's no guidance whatsoever for the hard-pressed GM as to what it should be, and it ends up playing a rather marginal role. The danger is that we end up playing the 'AP bidding game', with a descriptive gloss added on.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail