> In the latter case unless the game is pretty freewheeling or the group
> has a strong common aesthetic, you need to talk a fair bit more in
> order to make sure you are on the same page.
>
You have to do that in the first case, too, IMO. Whenever you come up with <REALLY COOL NAME> you have to explain what you mean by it or agree to explore it in play.
> If you have strong
> supporting fiction or pre-estabilished world, the credibility test is
> easier to apply.
>
This is absolutely true, of course. It's like Tax Attorney as an
ability, if everyone kind of knows what a Tax Attorney does, then it
isn't a problem.
>
>
> That said, I would read it as more of a strong guideline than an
> infallible rule -- if a situation arises where it is more credible for
> the ability to be used on its own than as an augment, sure... just as
> long as everyone is clear that something strange is going on.
>
I don't mind it as a guideline, since that puts it back in the sphere of
"judgment of credibility", which makes it just like any other ability.
>
> PS. For burning a house the obvious base abilities are "Mercenary",
> "Henchman", "Barbarian Invader", and the default 6 for those rare few
> characters with no equivalent abilities. Since IIRC Heortlings are a
> nudist colony of rain-worshippers, I would go with the default 6. :P
>
> _
LOL! True. I'd accept that ruling.
LC
Powered by hypermail