Re: "Sufficient" detail

From: Frank Rafaelsen <rafael_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:28:03 +0200 (CEST)


On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Mikko Rintasaari wrote:

> Ah, but Tom, this is one of the reasons I bother writing these. I like
> to have that detail, and am not happy with the fact that I'm not gettin
> any guidelines as to what a given feat is supposed to do. Would you bo
> opposed to there being those guidelines, for people like me who want
> them? Nobody forces the people who don't like them to use 'em, but the
> current situation is forcing people like me to try to play ESP games to
> figure out what the author had in mind when naming the feat.

I see. Now I understand why your frustrated. Impossible tasks tendt to do that to people. If you try to game in Greg's Glorantha; the true glorantha, no wonder your making yourself miserable.

As far as I'm concerned you've got a completely backwards approach to the game (bold statements, I know :) Whatever the authour had in mind is not just completely unknowable, it is also irrelevant. It is not about what the author had in mind, but about the images you get, _in_your_mind_ when you read a feat name.

Hero Wars doesn't work by definitions, it works by evocative language. Feats are not written to give you hints about what the author had in mind, they are written to give _you_ food for thought. Its not a flaw, it is a feature. It is a different way of thinking about rules. Elaborate definitions would defeat it's purpose.

I stand ready to be flamed :)

Ha en god dag!
Frank Rafaelsen

Powered by hypermail