>From: "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_...>
>
> > Yes, the "package" is all inclusive of whatever it should include. I
>don't
> > differ from you in the least on that.
>
>I think we differ on the use of the word "package"
Terminology aside, what matters in play is how the thing is used. That is, it seems to me that the important consideration is whether or not the player can augment more than once from the abilities under a keyword. The rule that says that any unenumerated ability can't be used to augment is very important, I think we all agree. So I think it's important for the many abilities to be on the character sheet for that reason.
Now, if you're saying that the keyword stands in for these abilities, if that's what you mean by "shorthand," and that you augment from all of the implied abilities, well, then I don't think we much disagree. But what it sounds to me like is that people only augment once from the abilities implied by a keyword. That is, it sounds to me like "shorthand" means "use the ability once to augment for anything underneath it." I don't know if this is how you actually play, but I do know that there are some who do play this way (I can cite a friend of mine who posted that he does so on The Forge). Basically making a keyword simply a very broad ability instead of functioning as the "package" of "all abilities that one learns from having the keyword" (as I'd put it). Meaning that one can augment from said keyword several times.
Even if it's just using multiple "skills" from a keywords, I think it's important to see the "fit" of a contest to a Hero by potentially doing so. But, again, more important is the notion that players actually fill out things like the associated relationships that come from these keywords, and deciding whether or not their character fits the personality pattern for the keyword. What I really don't want to see from "shorthand" is ommitting personalizing these things. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of players using the "As You Go" method, and just creating these things in play. What I'm against is the idea that the keyword can just stand in for these things, allowing the player off the hook of having to define them.
So, indeed, I slay many an electron putting in the lists of abilities such as they're known about the keywords. In fact, left undefined yet for play, I even put in relationships and such in generic format so that players are reminded that they have an ability that they need to consider yet. Looks like this on the character sheet:
Or whatever is appropriate. Because I want the player to be reminded that, even if he hasn't determined these things yet, that having selected the "package" of abilities, that they've gotten these automatically, and can't escape that. Without such reminders, some players will forget to deal with this sort of thing. When the player discovers some family in play, for instance, I point out that they then have an obligation to define their character's relationship with them based on their homeland keyword. This is, in fact, usually one of the first things that I do, if the relationship is left undefined. Because I find these abilities being enumerated to be invaluable in preparing properly for play (I think HQ play veritably floats on these abilities, actually).
Now, for other styles of play, this all is perhaps not so important I admit. For those people who think that the "non-keyword" abilities should be highlighted so as to focus on the individuality of the character, who don't see HQ as being as much about belonging to cultures and such, I can see how it's less important to them. But these are the very reasons that I play HQ, and so I find that the expanded enumeration of the keywords is not only worth the ink or electrons, but crucial.
Even if all we're differing on is whether or not to put the words on the page, if you're saying by "shorthand" that the abilities all effectively exist on the character sheet, that they can all augment (even if not listed but are merely implied or refered to), I still disagree, because I think players forget what abilities are included in the keyword. That is, I want them to have all of their known abilities on one list staring them in the face every time a conflict comes up. So that they do give them full consideration. I think that if you only reference them, that players will tend to treat the keyword as one broad ability. Saying things like, "Um, for this contest of trying to make it through the night unaccosted, something under warrior will apply here, no? So I can get a +2 from that, right?" I'd prefer to hear, "Make Camp, Identify Foe, and Scan for Danger all seem to apply to this contest about getting through the night unmolested. +6, Right?"
Again, to say nothing of relationships and personality.
I know that some people think that this is tedious somehow, having long lists of abilities which are augmented from. But that's a whole 'nother subject that we've discussed before. I find that lots of abilities and potential to augment work just fine - in fact are crucial to the way I play. So, again, I think that people's milage will vary here depending on their style of play, sure. All I'm saying is that I've had a lot of very successful play treating keywords as I have. People will have to judge for themselves whether or not that's going to work for their game.
One more point...
>But of course, to get the shorthand you have to know the background, and
>Glorantha has a *lot* of background.
Or you can just have the keyword enumerated for you. That is, having a lot of the keyword already listed on the page can tell you a lot about what it's like without needing to read further. In fact, what I prefer is to largely ignore digging around in the Gloranthan canon for what the keyword "should" include, and just leave it up to the player to expand in any way they like off the incomplete keyword ability listings. This is pretty much precisely why I don't play in Glorantha, so the temptation to dig around (even myself) is eliminated. I'd much rather that the players make up what the keywords mean to their satisfaction. Forcing my Glorantha to vary, if you will, to match what the players want, by not having any Glorantha to fall back on to start, other than the keywords (which are actually pretty generically fantasy).
Mike
Powered by hypermail