definition of feats

From: Steve Lieb <steve_at_...>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:52:36 -0500


> >Let's aim for a solution, or this thread will keep on coming back :
> >

Too late! Just kidding. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with the thread. I think it's in a sense a fundamental issue that, while we we may not (probably, in fact) resolve it, I think it's something the authors of HW (as well as any contributing writers) should contemplate however briefly when writing materials, to whit: "OK, I'm writing this NPC or cult writeup and I want to give them this cool feat I thought up - should I define it better or no?"

> >I think that we, as a group, are confusing things in a very silly and
> >destructive way : that is, we're confusing the HW rules with Glorantha.
>
> I think this is an oversimplification. The issues are
> inextricably bound up.

Thus the relatively frequent drift of posts from here covering Glorantha "stuff" and the occasional post on HeroWars that touches on rulesy stuff. I think the distance between the "system" and the "world" is an order of magnitude less than with RQ.

>
> > >From the rules POV it is, IMO, vitally important that every player
have his
> >freedom to interpret Feats etc *however* he likes.
>
> I don't think this is true. Some interpretations are wrong.

And while I agree with David logically, I think this is an issue that a GM (sorry, it's easier to write than "narrator" all the darn time) should decide and explain to their players during character creation. In my game, I'd personally say that feats have a narrow definition and while some creativity is welcomed from the players, they should support their creativity with either good canon mythological info or some damn good as-libbing - I'd accept either. :)

On the other hand, some GM's may say anything goes and more power to the players. Hey, whatever suits your fancy.

But! If you are going from the latter to the former (say moving from one group to another or whatever) it shouldn't shock you that simply because you are a "semantic adept" that you can get away with murder (whups, sorry, editorial feelings slipping in there...). In that sense, it's like the difference between 'closed' and 'open' campaigns.

> But given a few relatively simple rules (ie words should be
> interpreted naturally rather than metaphorically, feat names should
> not rely on external Gloranthan knowledge to interpret), we can get
> to the point where it is a non-problem.

I think this is true. Personally, I can see a rationale for a disconnect as with Sorcery or the old D&D spells - the feats can be described rather neutrally and let the players and GM come up with funky names - but the 'principle of the feat' would be rather closed to interpretation. But that's just me.

Powered by hypermail