> Adept wrote:
> >The problem is that a Gloranthan practising the "Leaping Sword" feat
> >would have to know what he is practising. Othervice how the heck does he
> >practise it?? He can't be practising "leaping sword" without knowing
> >what it means, and rather specifically too, presumably with somebody
> >instructing him.
> > So a Gloranthan would know what "Leaping Sword" refers to, but if we
> >only have those two words in a HW supplement, then we wont have a clue.
>
> Once the player and GM decide what they want for it to mean, it is then 'set'
> for that campaign and for anyone who wants to take that feat in the future *in
> that campaign*. The GM might allow variations on it, but it only needs to be
> consistent within that campaign.
This is true. But it forces _every_ GM to make such choises and the creative effort, and we end up with very little common ground between our campaigns and the published stuff. All in all not a very good strategy for a commersial product, I think.
> Mikko wrote:
> >This is ok by me. But are you guys seriously saying that either one of
> >these characters can use Flickering Blade in whichever function the
> >player deems to fit the name at a given session? In that case the
> >ambiguity of the feats has really gone so far, that we'd be better off
> >without any names for the feats.
>
> I would set the feat with the first player to take it. If more than one, I
> would sit down with the players who took that feat and decide on a single
> meaning...possibly with some variation. I certainly wouldn't decide session by
> session, but only when they first came up. From then on, that would be their
> definition in that campaign.
That's ok for a campaign, but there can be some very strange effects (see Babs and Snarl Darkness), and there will be very little consistensy with the published Glorantha.
> There's a lot of talk about consistency in Glorantha, but I see no need for
> it -outside- the current campaign. I don't see the need for it between
> independent campaigns. If you want to bring a character in from another
> campaign, then sit down with the GM and decide how the feats work in the new
> campaign and modify the character's feat descriptions accordingly. I would do
> something similar even in a non-Hero Wars game...house rules often differ, or
> descriptions of spells/powers, etc.
This will get you a consistent campaign, which is good, but is this what we wan't to force on every new GM?
> I've seen this argument raging for months, and I've never really
> understood what all the fuss was about...it seems pretty
> straightforward and sensible to me...
>
> Tom B.
It does? Then the new GM will buy a new supplement, which seems to contradict half the choises she has made. What will she do then? (except be frustrated)
-Adept
Powered by hypermail