- In HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote:
> I just would not allow it. Definately
> a 'yes, but...' here. Sure you can
> get that feat, find someone to teach
> you. And then we have the seed of a
> story/player driven scenario. 'Sure
> I'll teach you that if you.....'
My take is quite different :-)
Somewhat inspired by Greg's recent comments about Enferalda the
Supporter minimaxing her magical abilities as he expects player heroes
do and in the groove of Javern Spithorn's Sunset Leap
<http://www.glorantha.com/hw/javern_sunsetleap.html> ...
- An initiate can improvise a known feat from an affinity at, say, an
improvisation penalty of -5.
- An initiate may improvise a previously unknown feat from an affinity
at a penalty of -5 plus a further penalty of up to -15 depending on
how well they can justify it to the group (i.e. 1 min to quote or
improvise a myth) - the better the justification, the less the penalty.
- An initiate may not cement a feat, but if they have done the exact
same feat before then the total penalty would be in the region of -5
to -10
- A devotee may improvise a previously unknown feat from an affinity
at an improvisation penalty of up to -20 depending on how well they
can justify it to the group (i.e. 1 min to quote or improvise a myth) -
the better the justification, the less the penalty.
- A devotee may cement one of their improvised feats and thereafter
use it at no penalty.
- All of the above, of course, subject to standard situational
improvisation penalties.
Is this any better than your approach? No, and as long as everyone in
the group accepts one approach or another, I see little problem with
either. The one real difference is that your approach tends towards
the nitty gritty whereas what I suggest may allow a grand story-arc to
progress more freely. And this is a choice that each group (narrator
and players) has to make for itself.
regards,
Charles