> At 06:25 PM 8/15/00 +0300, Mikko Rintasaari wrote:
>
> > > Let's say Greg came out and said that, among other things,
> > > Snarl Darkness allows you to emit a blood-curdling sound that
> > > turns into a cloud of darkness that encircles the foes of the
> > > earth.
> >
> >I'd think that sounds a bit odd, but I meight go with that.
> >
>
> That's just me pulling an example out of the air (or
> darkness, as it were) for the sake of discussion.
>
> > > A player has that feat and, in a situation that comes up in
> > > play, wants to use Snarl Darkness to entangle and nullify the
> > > darkness magic of an opponent.
> > >
> > > Would you allow the player to do that?
> >
> >I don't think I would allow it, if the feat was defined as above.
>
> Then you see why, given that we want to enable players to
> exercise their creativity in this way, guidelines
> become problematic. No matter how many disclaimers
> the designers include reminding the reader that the
> list is just a starting point, some GMs will take
> them as proscriptive, and prevent their players from
> stepping outside them.
>
> Guidelines would serve one taste group at the expense
> of another. This is also true for the current lack of
> guidelines. And true for countless decisions one makes
> when designing and developing a game. Ultimately you
> have to decide which taste group you're targeting and
> choose the default you think best entertains them.
>
> Take care >>> Robin
Thanks, Robin. That's exactly the feel I had when I saw the debates
on detailing feats. I liked them being left open to interpretation
and multiple meanings...if it seems appropriate. I'm going to print
out this e-mail and put it in my rulebook for when this topic comes
up with my group.
Tom B.