That's true. Though if the "String Bean" ability is used against something more "normal" in a contest, comparison with keyword abilities does become a factor. "Best in tribe at X" does have a standard value.
> If you're saying that you think that "starting
> characters" are too low
> powered, I'm right there with you.
Well... if you want characters at that sort of "power", then those are the levels to use, and if not, then not - but I was thinking more of the character whose overall "power" is "normal" (whatever that means), but who has one or two abilities that are both weird and unusually high.
> >(String Bean? I'm fascinated now. Is this vegetable
> >preparation, or necklace making?)
>
> Means like a thin green bean here in the US, and
> refering to a person with
> it means a tall thin person.
Ah, right. I think I prefer my versions :)
> I needed an ability quick.
Looks better than "skinny", as names go.
> >Very true. But why not start with the player
> saying,
> >explicitly "I want him being tall to be a major
> factor
> >in the plot and in how other people see him" and
> then
> >as a completely separate action, agreeing with the
> GM
> >on a number to represent how tall he is? Which
> might be 12.....
>
> Because it seems easier not to have to have that
> negotiation. Call me lazy as a narrator.
I wouldn't do that: but then the negotiation I've done with players along those lines has generally been that they ask what the norm is if I haven't already told them, they suggest a number, I agree to it. For something they've already said is important to them, I can cope with this. The real effort goes into working out how to base plot around it.
> > > But those have to be determined on a
> per-character
> > > basis. I want a hard limit that works for
> everybody.
> >
> >Why? What's the attraction?
>
> Simpler. I have nothing against complexity. But the
> alternative doesn't do
> anything for me. It's just more complex.
Probably a difference in what we regard as "complex", then. To me, having to spend hours doing sums is complexity I'd much rather avoid.
> > > So that people don't think your "we" applies to
> > > everybody on the list.
> >
> >(blank look) How on earth could it? Telepathic
> ability
> >to read the minds of everyone on the list... that
> >would be impressive, but not likely.
>
> Then to whom did it refer? Was it the royal "We?"
Without a link to the specific sentence you're refering to I have no idea, and it seems to have got snipped a long time back. Probably not royal, my ancestral links with royalty are a bit far back for that.
> Was it just the Swords group, then?
Probably. That's the only game I run, so the only one where I determine the system in use.
> Do you have telepathy with them?
It feels like it at times :) Not that I need it for this (if we're talking about the "no limits" thing), I did this "direct communication" idea. Asked them what they thought of the concept, they answered. No guesswork needed. OK, so the initial answer was "you're mad!"...
> You've played in two games with me as well...
But I've never had you as a player in a game I've run, unless I'm forgetting something.
> You'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood you.
Email does this at times :(
Powered by hypermail