> I think you could create a consistent set of rules along those
lines;
> its how RQ and D&D handle magic items, after all.
> But they are not the HW1 rules as described in HW:RiG. The rules
make
> NO distinction between (abilities and) items acquired during
> character generation and those acquired during play.
I disagree, in that a distinction is made between Cementing an item which was introduced during play, and buying an ability new. I do, however, agree that the distinction is left without detail.
> The rules imply that 'The Wheel of Stasis' is an item that could be
> cemented. Now, that sounds like an ambiguous reference to me, just
> like 'The Sack of Black Winds'. You seem to be saying that if I were
> to create a character with 'Wheel of Stasis 13', and someone else in
> our group were to cement a 'Wheel of Stasis', we would have
> completely different items handled using different rules.
Not quite. If the narrator had introduced something called the 'Wheel of Stasis', you could cement it & it would have a rating of 12. If it was in your 100 words, 13. BUT... if the Narrator created an item called 'Wheel of Stasis 5W (causes Lethargy 13 in owner)', you could ONLY cement it complete with both ratings. You cement an item as it has been defined. If it has no rating or defined powers, it's a new item (in which case, you are still cementing the item, but as it's got no rating, it starts from scratch at 12, with no specific powers - a blank slate to write on, and a potential plot hook for later). If someone else subsequently wanted to create a new 'Wheel of Stasis', it would have a rating 12, as the narrator disn't introduce it.
The significant definition of an item to be cemented is, to my reading, that it should have appeared in play. By implication, I take that also to mean AS it appeared in play. That need not mean it cannot be improved by the normal methods, but it DOES mean that it COULD be defined to prevent it from being improved.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail