Re: Affinity and Mythology (was A thought on limiting improvisation)

From: giangero <giangero_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:49:00 -0000

> But is that a fair analogy? F1 drivers have huge companies/teams to
do
> everything EXCEPT driving for them. Maybe rally drivers would be
> better, there are a lot of improvising mechanics there (even if it's
> the "how many bent bits can we rip off and still keep moving?"
> variety). They were even improvising new routes in Kenya (won by a
> Scot, naturally :-).

ah, I see why you don't like the F1 analogy <g>  

> The question is, just what, and how much, connection is there
between
> Mythology and Affinities/Feats? To my mind, a feat IS a myth, or at
> least a re-enactment of one. To use yet another analogy, no matter
how
> good a singer you are, you have to know a song to sing it. How can
you
> perform a feat without knowing the myth? PLAYERS improvise feats,
> CHARACTERS are re-enacting deeds performed by their deity in myths
> they have seen, heard or even performed. They must know the myth
> underlying the feat.

Of course they have to know it, but the fact that they know it in game-mechanical terms is represented by their affinity (or stand alone feat) rating and by the name of the feat written on the sheet. Why inventing cross relations with another ability?

Different is the case of narrating the moment when a character improvises or discovers or cements a new feat. In that issue, IMO, you can require Mythology rolls or even other ability tests (relationship with the Godi or devotion rating or mental concentration ability or tea ceremony ability) according to the situation, the hero, the player's description, the narrator viciousness etc. etc.. I am simply contrary to a cap/umbrella ability rating that forces a mechanical one-way solution to the issue.

Ciao,
Gian