>From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
>
>How about "could" be rated higher?
They can be. I can rate my "String Bean" other ability at 18, and just not raise up any of my keyword abilities, for instance.
>Wasn't it
>you who was arguing a while back that the ratings
>assigned to abilities don't actually show how good the
>PC is at them, but how much the player is interested
>in them?
Not precisely. I said that spending points or HP on an ability indicates player interest in the ability. A Tall 15 that costs an "other ability" and two starting points shows more interest than a 17 ability from a keyword.
>If you find artificial numerical limits helpful, by
>all means impose them on yourself.
Good, then we agree.
>But your self-imposed limits could quite easily be
>along the lines of "if my PC is the best swordsman in
>the clan, that will give him certain obligations
>towards the rest of the clan,
But those have to be determined on a per-character basis. I want a hard limit that works for everybody.
Nobody's saying your method is wrong. I'm just telling you what works for me. So that people don't think your "we" applies to everybody on the list.
Mike
Powered by hypermail