On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, David Cake wrote:
Sorry about the late reply.
I'll clear up something you wrote close to the end of your email:
> 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.
Your right. I've obviously read more into your argument than you actually wrote. Sorry for barking up the wrong tree. My mistake :)
And when that is cleard up I'll get back to the things where we really disagree.
> 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.
I don't like to think of it as confusing or controversial, but rather as 'rich', 'open' or 'fertile'. Poetic names/descriptions are not confusing, they are rich in meaning. They would be confusing if there was a true interpretation. I don't think there is such a thing. Not in my campaign anyway.
This leads to the question: should feats do only one thing? Or can they do many things? It also question how much should be pre-interpreted and pre-digested for the players. For me it is clearly limiting creativity and innovation if there is only one possible interpretation. I think this might be what we are disagreeing about.
> >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.
I have to admit I didn't read your example. But from what you say I would argue that it is for just this reason that the example is silly. As you say, it is pretty obvious that it is not about racing troops over roads. What is the problem here? Language doesn't work by strict definitions. But that doesn't mean that anything goes. We know how 'Rally Troops' is used just by being adept english speakers (or at least, you are :). The same would apply to Sunset Leap. Sunset Leap wouldn't be about making the sun jump around on the skydome in my campaign. That would be going outside the boundaries of interpretation for me. And I dare to guess that it does so for you too.
Since you wanted more straight forward - descriptions of feats I would like to point out that Rally Troops would qualify as that in my book, and still you've able to point out 'problems' with it. Would straight forward descriptions do any good at all if you look at them the same way you did with Rally Troops?
It is always hard to write in such a way that it only has got one obvious meaning (I'm temptet to say that it is impossible, but I've promised myself that I'll try to be less bombastic in the future). Why fight ambiguity? Poetic descriptions/names should be a resource for innovation and creativity.
> Ah, so you don't think consistency would aid in writing
> supplements? Or even, perhaps, having some sort of consistent
> Glorantha at all?
I'll give you that supplements would be more easy to write with clear descriptions. But I don't really see a problem here. Issaries has probably got an understanding of what a feat does, and over the course of several supplements it's use will probably become the basis for a common understanding. And I have no problem with that since I can still refute it without having to change a sentence in the rules.
> 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.
I would love to have an enterprising and creative player have a go at 'Commune with Celestial Body'. I would wait with anticipation to see what he could come up with. And I would temper his use of it with the Feng Shui priciple; if it destroys the story it is no-go.
Ha en god dag!
Frank Rafaelsen
Powered by hypermail