Just a second - we are talking about a feat that is named in a confusing or controversial way. By definition, its ambiguous text. So, the only sentence we have to go on is ambiguous, can be twisted, and used in an argument. Sure, the GM can just say no - but thats how all games work. The goal is to reduce the number of times such situations occur in the first place - by having less controversial, confusing, ambiguous text in the first place.
Besides, the idea that the GM is the ultimate arbiter just doesn't realistically solve the problem. The GM can overrule and change the rules in rules heavy games, too - but it still leads to arguments, or resentment. For some reason, I don't find an argument over rules interpretation intrinsically much worse than an argument over interpretation of a non-rule. And I think having new players sit around and scratch their heads and say 'I wonder what the hell that is all about?' doesn't really help the game either.
>Rules-lawyering is much more of a problem in rules-heavy games.
Yes. In games that aren't rules heavy, they are just called arguments. They are still bad.
But what I really want is feats where at least 90% of the time, its obvious to an experienced HW player whether a given interpretation is reasonable or not. Thats easy with a feat named Blind Foe, or Lift Things With Wind, or Make Sword of Fire. Its not easy with a feat named Widows Shout, Sunset Leap, or Travelling Hat. So lets name our feats something straightforward, and get less arguments. And sometimes, it might help to have more than a handful of words about it, particularly if its a feat that works in an area we have relatively little experience with.
>And you talk about what feats actually mean as if they have a true
>interpretation. They don't.
Sure they do. To go back to my silly example, Rally Troops really does not refer to making the troops race over roads. That isn't spelt out in the game anywhere, but its pretty obvious to me - in that case. Its not clear to me at first glance, however, exactly what the word Sunset is all about in Sunset Leap - and I know far more about Glorantha than the average digester, let alone the average HW purchaser - but I think it must be about something.
>This is where the learning curve is eased. A
>fest does what you and your freinds agree that it does. Thats it, nothing
>more.
Ah, so you don't think consistency would aid in writing supplements? Or even, perhaps, having some sort of consistent Glorantha at all?
In any case, the real aim is for a feat to do what you and your friends agree it does - without you and your friends having to stop to have confused discussion and/or arguments in the middle of play, because the sort of things that the feat does are relatively obvious, and achieving that concensus takes some time. Take 'Commune With Celestial Body' for example - I can see an awful lot of interpretations of what that is useful for, especially as the celestial bodies are also deities. Many of the things you could do with it are real game ruiners, too.
>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?
I think you are argueing against something you think I said, rather than something I did. I am generally argueing for clearer feat names, not expanded descriptions for everything.
Though for that matter, I would like to hear an explanation of why expanded rules for Berserk, flying, Unification Ceremony etc are good, but expanded rules for, say, Read Mind or See Past or other potential game ruiners are Very Bad Things that will Ruin the Game Utterly and make us all Terribly Uncreative and Unimaginitive. Still, Illumination can help you maintain those mutually contradictory world views, hey. And don't even get me started on Secrets, which frequently add lots of rules, and frequently incredibly dodgy ones - when Secrets should be the least rules intense things in many cases.
> > 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.
I don't understand this reasoning at all. I would simply much rather have a feat named something like 'pick things up with wind' than a feat named something like 'gust of manipulation'. They might mean more or less the same thing. Sure, Lift Objects With Wind is clearly named, and probably needs no other rules at all for most people.
On the other hand, I fail to see how a sentence saying, 'the resistance to the List Objects With Wind Feat might be the objects resistance to lifting, see the sample resistance table for some values, typically 20 for a human being' is going to dramatically ruin the game either.
(PS the most imaginative and clever applications of magic I have seen in play have been in games with very rigidly defined rules about whats possible with magic, FWIW, so I don't really buy the theory that consistency kills creativity. My favourite was the illusion of the small child chasing their ball onto the road in front of the pursueing police car.)
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail