Feat consistency

From: Thomas Bagwell <tnbagwell_at_...>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:15:45 -0500


Adept wrote:
>The problem is that a Gloranthan practising the "Leaping Sword" feat
>would have to know what he is practising. Othervice how the heck does he
>practise it?? He can't be practising "leaping sword" without knowing
>what it means, and rather specifically too, presumably with somebody
>instructing him.
> So a Gloranthan would know what "Leaping Sword" refers to, but if we
>only have those two words in a HW supplement, then we wont have a clue.

Once the player and GM decide what they want for it to mean, it is then 'set' for that campaign and for anyone who wants to take that feat in the future *in that campaign*. The GM might allow variations on it, but it only needs to be consistent within that campaign.

Mikko wrote:
>This is ok by me. But are you guys seriously saying that either one of
>these characters can use Flickering Blade in whichever function the
>player deems to fit the name at a given session? In that case the
>ambiguity of the feats has really gone so far, that we'd be better off
>without any names for the feats.

I would set the feat with the first player to take it. If more than one, I would sit down with the players who took that feat and decide on a single meaning...possibly with some variation. I certainly wouldn't decide session by session, but only when they first came up. From then on, that would be their definition in that campaign.

There's a lot of talk about consistency in Glorantha, but I see no need for it -outside- the current campaign. I don't see the need for it between independent campaigns. If you want to bring a character in from another campaign, then sit down with the GM and decide how the feats work in the new campaign and modify the character's feat descriptions accordingly. I would do something similar even in a non-Hero Wars game...house rules often differ, or descriptions of spells/powers, etc.

I've seen this argument raging for months, and I've never really understood what all the fuss was about...it seems pretty straightforward and sensible to me...

Tom B.

Powered by hypermail