Re: Foul and personal abuse [was Re: Heroic Actions [Rant, OT]]

From: Dan Pettersson <atlantis_at_...>
Date: 14 Feb 2003 14:53:10 +0100


On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 14:13, Graham Robinson wrote:
> Hold on a second. How exactly has my advice on this matter been "do as you
> please"? I've tried to point out how to find the structure in the rules -
> it is there!

Where did I comment upon your advice, except as being part of "fourteen thousand messages"? In fact so is mine. And two things my comment was written while I was irritataded so I might not have been as eloquent as I should have been, and the only types of advice I have not been satified with are the feat interpreting ones. I apologies to all those that has in fact helped me and others when givin useful advice, if offence was taken it was not meant.

> As for games not being freeform and penalizing players who are not good at
> inventing stuff on the spot, that is not inherent in the rules, and I (and
> many, many others) have not suggested any such thing. HW *AS A RULES
> SYSTEM* is perfectly playable on the level of "I use my close combat
> augmented by my kill things magic and my other kill things magic and my
> strength to kill the opponent". You want more colour, great! You're happy
> with that, great! There is also nothing (at all!) to stop you running games
> with as much structure as you like. Last night I ran a session where every
> encounter was written down, and the players went through them in strict
> order. It had stats and everything! We had a blast.
>
> The *ONE* dispute I've seen in all this is that some people want a more
> detailed description of the "correct" way to interpret feats. In most cases
> the answer comes down to "Death Song Berserk" involves using the Berserk
> rules, Singing and Death. All that applies, you get to use it. There is one
> (and still only one ever gets mentioned) feat where the word "sunset" is a
> problem - is that merely poetic, or does my feat use have to involve the
> literal sunset? And in response, Greg posted a wonderful little example
> showing some possibilities.

If feat interpretation is just one small thing why is there so many messages about it, or is feat interpreatation not something that the rules should help us with?

I don't think there is one correct way to interpret feats any more than you do, but there would be nice if there was. As it is now, either a feat can do one thing at one time and can't do the same thing six months later or I (or my player) has to write down every time we use it. At least I is not really interested in that, E.i. I want more structure.

> Now, it seems to me that certain people (naming no names, and if you think
> it can't properly be applied to you, then I probably don't mean you) are
> making up strawman problems, and then complaining for the fun of it. I
> certainly can't see how either Wulf's or your comments are remotely
> helpful, although Nick could (and possibly should) have found a more
> tactful way of saying so.

I don't think that asking for help using the least defined part of the game, or even any part of the game that you don't understand is a strawman problem just as there is no minor pain if it is yours.

May your every game be better that the one before!

-- 
Dan Pettersson <atlantis_at_...>

Powered by hypermail