>From: "Roderick Robertson" <rjremr_at_...>
>
>My reply: Add another layer of Keyword to filter.
Makes sense, and is hardly different from the solution that seems to be emerging elswhere. My naming is merely adding it all into one big culture keyword. You're breaking it up. Works the same, it seems (though you might be able to augment more under some interpretations).
>I think part of the consideration for "keywordability" is the function of
>these abilities being passed on to others, both in the same generation, and
>in succeeding ones.
Exactly. That's what I was saying with the "King's Assasin" example. So as long as the current King's Assasin is defined by his similarities to the last, we have our "group" or "archetype."
>Sure, you can put it on the
>sheet, but I, frankly, think it's clutter to no real purpose.
I don't think anyone's worried about this. They're worried more about players adding stuff that will make it into play, if allowed.
>Should the Homeland keywords have gender distinctions applied? Yes, I think
>they absolutely should, and that they should have when they were written.
How about class distinctions?
I think that, in fact, the keywords can be forgiven, for not including gender, because I think you could create keywords ad infinitum. I think the key is to give people enough examples so that, should they need to do so, they can make their own.
I mean, the Heortling keyword doesn't say that it's not for Tribal kings (and maybe it is, I dunno). But if it's not, then it's up to us to make one that works.
Rather, if you're looking at the keyword that you've got in front of you, and you don't think it quite fits, because it doesn't represent the group your character is supposed to be in, then adjust it. Don't assume that it was intended to cover your group, because you have one label in common with it.
Mike
Powered by hypermail