Re: Ambiguous powers

From: Richard Develyn <Richard.Develyn_at_...>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:03:01 +0100


From: Dave Bailey [mailto:db_at_...]

> I like that idea, I think it'll be the default to a large extent
>anyway, folks like consistancy. Define "you" - is that the first time a
>power is used by anybody or by a particular individual? I guess the
>individual, when they first use the power they define their primary focus,
>all other possibilities will fall into line from there which kinda brings
me
>back to people always going for a particular use because it's "better" than
>others. Following that logic, over all the powers, most people will have a
>similar interpretation of is capabilities. Seems to me like a web site will
>spring up to categorise them......I'd better do some real work.

By 'you' I did indeed mean the individual.

This technique to limit applicability works on magical abilities because they are, well, magical.

Alas this solution wont work on mundane ablities, like 'strong', because although you could argue that the first time you use your strength in some situation it is your preferred or natural application of strength, you're not really going to be able to justify high improvisation penalties on other uses.

It's with the mundane abilities that I think we need to start thinking about classification w.r.t. applicability. In HW, IMO, the applicabiltiy of a skill is as important as its strength.

Richard

Powered by hypermail