Re: feats and descriptions

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:41:41 +0800

At 1:30 PM -0700 20/6/00, David Dunham wrote:
> >That sucks. We are not playing scrabble. This is no way to run a
>>FRP. Either it's an adjective meaning "swift" or it refers to actual
>>crackling stormfire, and I want to know.
>
>Then we're at an impasse. I believe this really is a way to run an
>FRP, and that it works pretty well.

        Really, David? Do you think any valid english use of the words in a feat description is fine, even in those cases when its obviously not what is meant (my example of Rally Troops referring to moving fast on roads, for example)? Because obvious to one is not obvious to another - so if you think that some interpretations are valid and some are not, then you should have no problem with slight clarification (and if you think all interpretations that are valid in English are OK regardless of whether they were intended, then it is just silly word games).

>It's also more literary (and probably more true to Glorantha) --
>magic is, well, magic, not just a laundry list of abilities. If a
>game can present it less deterministically, that's almost certainly a
>good thing.

        There have been some suggestions that I think go far too far in prescribing what a feat does in rules terms.

        However, I am asking, essentially, for three simple things in relation to feat descriptions
1) that in the cases where there are multiple meanings of an English term, especially one with metaphorical uses, that it be made clear which one is intended. In most cases, this requires no change to the rules - just the simple ruling that when in doubt, a term should be interpreted literally. This doesn't mean a Lightning Sword can't be fast (literal lightning is fast, using your Lightning Sword feat to invoke only a specific aspect of lightning seems a reasonable interpretation), but it does mean that a Lightning Sword feat refers to literal Lightning.
2) that in cases where the phrase is difficult to put into a normal context or refer to parts of the effect that may not be obviously applicable, that there be some clarification (ie there is a word missing in the Snarl Darkness feat name) and
3) that interpretation of what a feat means should not rely on obscure gloranthan knowledge, but be reasonably obvious to a new player from immediate context (this is not something I think is a big problem in the game, but is the reason why I reject the 'Mastakos myth' interpretation of Sunset Leap suggested on this list).

	CHeers
		David