>For each season, you have 5 HP worth of improvements.
So no keyword advancement? It seems from David's post that he sees keywords as just the abilites that are listed under the keyword. That if you just increase the abilities inside the keyword that it's comparative to raising the keyword as a whole (forgive me, David, if I've read too much in). And I've seen other coments that seem to support this opinion. That if you just raise each of the abilities under a keyword that it's no different than raising the keyword itself by the same amount.
So why do we rate keywords? Just for shorthand so we don't have to list the level of anything that's not been raised? The book states that other abilities can come from keywords, and that you can use the keyword itself (do I have this right). If so, then the level of the keyword itself is very important. I see it as a sort of "default" that picks up any gaps in terms of what the other listed abilities miss, but may still be appropriate to the keyword.
I think that, theoretically, this is a very important concept. The problem is that, in play, I've never seen anyone use a keyword as a default (including myself). I think that so many abilities get listed under a keyword that you tend to miss the forrest for the trees. I've also never seen a player ask for a new ability at 17 based off a keyword.
I think this just might be ignorance, however (or maybe the rule doesn't exist, and I'm imagining it). Basically, not seeing the ability in front of them, they don't think to raise it. I mean with so many already there in such complete fashion, I don't see a player coming up with more.
So, what's your take on the keyword rules, and is there a point to listing them at their level other than shorthand? If so, what? And if a keyword is all of these things, then doesn't that mean that David's Heroes aren't going to see any increase in important areas? Or is the use so infrequent as to make kewyword increases unimportant?
The Saga system seemed to me to show a way to easily bump up the character in a way that means that they've become more experienced not just in specifics, but in those "little ways" that a default would indicate best. Does the rest of the system support this?
Mike
Powered by hypermail