At 09:32 AM 08/27/2000 -0700, David Dunham wrote:
>I keep going back and forth on whether shamans should have
>bargaining, or Tradition Knowledge should be expanded. One or the
>other must be true (or both).
I'd like to throw another two cents on the fire:
I'm in favor of "expanding" Tradition Knowledge to include the various
forms of dealing with spirits. (The quotes around "expanding" are there to
indicate that I think that Tradition Knowledge is already the logical
source of a shaman's ability to deal with spirits.) Here's why:
- Q:How does a shaman know how to deal with spirits? A:Tradition Knowledge
(inferred from HW:RiG p. 207). I don't think that it is necessary to add
other skills to a shaman's keyword or require a shaman to have Bargain,
Grovel, Flatter, etc.
- If the shaman does have Bargain, Flatter, or Grovel, does this mean that
shamans are good bargainers, flatterers, or grovelers in other aspects of
life? I don't think so. (This leads to weird results like the high strength
mages in GURPS that exist because strength is directly related to "magic
points".)
- Ability inflation: I also don't see the need to add "With Spirits" to
each of those skills so that shamans need yet another set of basic skills
to perform the basic parts of their form of worship.
- Adding words to the effect of "Non-combat methods of dealing with
spirits are covered by the shaman's Tradition Knowledge, augmented by other
relevant skills."[1] to the third paragraph under the Spirits heading on p.
206 of HW:RiG seems to be the least intrusive way to deal with this issue
and it can be easily added to the errata in the meantime.
[1] The part about "augmented by other relevant skills" allows the shaman
to use skills such as Bargain, Grovel, and Flatter.
Please comment. I have been using the above system in my game and it works
for me, but I'd like to know if there are any holes in my logic.
Thanks,
Andy Dawson