> 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).
Not at all. And I mean that seriously. There is nothing to be rule-lawering over. A player asks his GM if something is possible with the power. The GM says no. There is no fine print, there is no exceptions, there is no ambigous text that can be twisted and used as an argument. Rules-lawyering is much more of a problem in rules-heavy games.
And you talk about what feats actually mean as if they have a true interpretation. They don't. This is where the learning curve is eased. A fest does what you and your freinds agree that it does. Thats it, nothing more.
On the other hand, I'm very curious to see if Issaries Inc. has got the guts to see this through. If they do, glorantha has truly become _our_ world.
> 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.
Yes, negotiating what a feat can do has become more of trying to convince your GM that this is cool, rather then going to page N and quoting the rules to him. What on earth is wrong with this?
> Feats should say clearly what they mean. To be then
> interpreted as creatively as possible.
For me this is The road that leads Rules-Lawyering Country. I'm not going down there. And I certainly hope Issaries won't either.
Ha en god dag!
Frank Rafaelsen
Powered by hypermail