Hmmm, this doesn't sound like anyone of the rules-lawyers I know or
play with, ambiguity is one of the two essences of rules-lawyering along
with perversity. And one name/phrase is the ultimate in ambiguity, it
can
mean whatever I can twist it into.
Unless you have players who are happy to have their creative/perverse
ideas
(depending upon point of view) cut off by fiat by their GM, there is
plenty of room for discussion/rules-lawyering over whether a particular
effect is covered by this particular feat/affinity.
Example:
Player: I use my lightning sword featto roast this cow in a second and cut it up so that it lands in nice little steaks for all the people on the table, what do I have to roll?
Narrator: No, you can't do that.
Player: But, my close combat skill is X and I was raised on a farm so I
know
how to butcher cattle and I've been living in the wilderness and cooking
etc.etc. etc.
Narrator: No.
Player: Why?
Narrator: Blah blah about why they don't see it as an appropriate use of the feat/affinity, Hedkoranth not being renowned for his cooking skills.
Player: But, etc. etc.
>
> 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.
>
There is the nub, "you and your friends agree that it does", there is
ample
room for rules-lawyering in this statement alone.
Not to say that this is necessarily a problem, but it could quite easily become a problem for a group. I think what is definitely needed is more myth for us to base these decisions on, so I hope that Thunder Rebels, She Guards Us etc are liberally sprinkled with myth and story.
Martin
Powered by hypermail