> Adept wrote:
> > Thomas Bagwell wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >This is true. But it forces _every_ GM to make such choises and the
> >creative effort, and we end up with very little common ground between
> >our campaigns and the published stuff. All in all not a very good
> >strategy for a commersial product, I think.
>
> Most GMs enjoy creative effort...if not, he can let the player describe the feat
> and then approve, disapprove, or modify it. Any character brought into somebody
> else's campaign usually needs a few modifications anyway, so this seems pretty
> minor. It's not like feats are advanced calculus to describe. It poses no
> problem with published material, since published material doesn't detail the
> feats anyway.
You don't think that published scenarios and stories will have some (narrative) descriptions of feats and magic. I disagree. The already published stuff on the webpage seems to give some definitions on the feats used therein.
> >> 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.
> >
> >That's ok for a campaign, but there can be some very strange effects
> >(see Babs and Snarl Darkness), and there will be very little consistensy
> >with the published Glorantha.
>
> It will be perfectly consistent with the published Glorantha, since the
> published Glorantha doesn't detail the feats anyway.
No? So that Babeester Gor PC:s with strong darkenss powers won't contradict the published scenarios. We'll just see about that.
> >> 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.
> >
> >This will get you a consistent campaign, which is good, but is this what
> >we wan't to force on every new GM?
>
> Force what? Feat descriptions? It's a fairly minor task compared to running a
> campaign, and he can always leave it up to the player, subject to his approval.
This is something that has been forced on a friend of mine that runs a
Kulthe (Shadow Wordl) campaign. The religions and gods therein have been
left pretty much undescribed. The workload is quite enormous, now that
he is trying to bring them up to gameable detail. And in Glorantha,
where religion and myth are at the center stage, the workload is huge. I
don't think too many GM:s want to just make them up as they go along,
with no tought to the internal workings of the world in question. And to
get that consistensy with the rest of Glorantha, one has to do a
!#%&load of research into the old material, and read between the lines
of the new.
Not good...
> >> 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...
> >
> >It does? Then the new GM will buy a new supplement, which seems to
> >contradict half the choises she has made. What will she do then? (except
> >be frustrated)
>
> How can the supplement contradict his choices, if the supplement doesn't detail
> the feats? You keep stating this...have I missed something? Has someone said
> future supplements -will- detail feats? I was under the impression that the
> feats were never going to be detailed, and that this was the cause of the
> controversy...to me it seems like it makes the controversy moot.
>
> Tom B.
They will detail the feats in the sense that they will have characters doing things with the feats, and these things may well differ compleately from the explanations and definitions a given GM has chosen.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail