On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 11:27:25AM -0500, Kmnellist_at_... wrote:
> I do have problems though with Grimoires and Sorcery Spells. Spells are
> specified as being much more restricted in usage and this means that a vague
> two word reference is not enough. Feats are supposed to be interpreted in a
> "this is how Orlanth would have done it" kind of way. Spells cannot be so
> easily "interpreted".
One might argue though, that the "Spells" in HW game mechanical terms don't map 1-1 onto game-world spells, and that the player of such a character is just dealing with this at a certain level of storytelling abstraction. As you say though, a certain facility with, and consistency in, dealing with this in play in such a way as to maintain a certain game-world verisimilitude is obviously highly desirable.
Indeed, I think that's only true of Feats, in a somewhat different sense. Most Feats, for most people in the world, do act in a somewhat specific manner, especially as regards the ritualised aspects of making it come into effect, and certainly with regard to which myth it's enacting, IMO. But on the majority of occassions, that much distinction or detail wouldn't be important in play, especially in the style HW seeks to promote.
(I know technically, that wasn't a very rulesy answer, but that's somewhat the way of this list, for the most part. Ask a rules q., and get either GMing advice, or game-world factoids...)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail