Most GMs enjoy creative effort...if not, he can let the player describe the feat and then approve, disapprove, or modify it. Any character brought into somebody else's campaign usually needs a few modifications anyway, so this seems pretty minor. It's not like feats are advanced calculus to describe. It poses no problem with published material, since published material doesn't detail the feats anyway.
>> 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.
It will be perfectly consistent with the published Glorantha, since the published Glorantha doesn't detail the feats anyway.
>> 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?
Force what? Feat descriptions? It's a fairly minor task compared to running a campaign, and he can always leave it up to the player, subject to his approval.
>> 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...
>
>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)
How can the supplement contradict his choices, if the supplement doesn't detail the feats? You keep stating this...have I missed something? Has someone said future supplements -will- detail feats? I was under the impression that the feats were never going to be detailed, and that this was the cause of the controversy...to me it seems like it makes the controversy moot.
Tom B.
Powered by hypermail