RE: Re: One More Sunset Leap Post

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:16:30 +0800


>Wulf wrote:
>
>> I for one do not like a 'Leap' being used as a teleport...
>
>You'd prefer Orlanth Adventurous worshippers to have no teleportation powers
>whatsoever, I suppose? Even though this has been a constant feature of their
>magic ever since RQ1 days?

        'the listed feats are only suggestions'. If you want a teleport feat, I suggest you add it to the movement affinity and call it 'Teleport'.

>
>All I want is for Sunset Leap *not* to be defined [that evil word!] as "in
>no way a teleport power, no siree!" Is that really too much to ask?

        Well, I rather like it to be something to do with Leaping, and if possible Sunsets. Neither one of which is Teleporting. But that doesn't mean I mind the existence of teleport feats, no siree. I'm all for them, but I do prefer it if they have the word 'Teleport' in them somewhere.

At 3:11 PM +0200 22/6/00, Frank Rafaelsen wrote:
>I hope not. By leaving the affinities undefined you first of all lower the
>learning curve for the players, prevent rules-lawyering, and open up for
>player innovation and creativity.

        Any feat that is confusing or controversial in meaning raises the learning curve, and encourages arguments about what it actually means if your version stretches a straight forward explanation (aka rules lawyering). Having feats that are not confusing (or even deliberately confusing/ambiguous) is not rigidly constraining what feats are all about - its just shifting the potential for creativity from creative rules interpretations and wordplay to actual creative world useage.

        Feats should say clearly what they mean. To be then interpreted as creatively as possible.

	Cheers
		David

Powered by hypermail