On December 15, 2006 03:42 pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
> And actually you could be right. Adrian hasn't said whether or not the
> specific rule was mentioned or not. I'm only speculating.
Good point. We all are.
> Yeah, I think some of it already is in the specific keywords selected,
> actually. Might have to use one of the "redundant" methods there, but
> ignoring the additional statements works fine.
Either/or.
> BTW, while I agree that the character wouldn't be "overpowering" with all
> of the abilities listed, there's a better reason for Adrian to stick to his
> guns. Which is that the constraint caused by the reduction in abilities
> chosen makes for a more interesting character in the end, I believe.
This I do believe. A couple of cleverly chosen, evocative traits tend to be WAY more interesting. (IMHO)
> What's interesting is that the player in question has been playing the
> character Octavian for a while now (lots of actual time, but it's PBEM, so
> not all that much game time). So we all have an idea of what the character
> is like. None of what he'd listed seems implausible to me.
Fair enough. But then, with good choice of keywords and folding that in, it all works.
It's like taking half of Han Solo's stuff and putting it under the keyword "Scoundrel".
> BTW, on the subject of "Longswords" plural, I think that this is just an
> ability. Like "Big Muscles" in an ability list doesn't give one augment per
> muscle in the character's body. It's in no way a problem to indicate groups
> of things as abilities. Any more than it is to, say, have a relationship to
> a village instead of having to purchase each individual in the village (or
> each villager's muscle). You get what you "pay" for. One word description
> for "Longswords"? That's one ability.
I agree. That's why I thought he should have them - magical longswords - 13. Do what you want with it.
LC
Powered by hypermail