RE: "Sufficient" detail

From: Jeff Johnson <jsjohnso_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 05:20:01 -0700

If you really meant what I think you're saying - that magic was deliberately left completely undefined - then you failed utterly to communicate it to me in the written book.

I am one of the people I would have thought you were slanting the game towards. I'm perfectly happy with a rules-light game that defines magical powers in general terms that can be improvised in use. Like, "your character has a connection with wolves, and can perform feats that involve communicating with canines or taking on wolflike attributes such as fangs and acute senses". A paragraph for each would have been fine. This would have meant detailing only one or two magical sources for each culture, instead of a dozen, but that would have been okay with me.

Instead, we got powers that in most cases are nothing more than a name, and often an ambiguous name.

A single word does not adequately describe a magic power.

Saying "interpret the powers however you want" is not a description of a powerfully magical fantasy world's magic system, either. At least, it's not one that I feel good paying for.

Jeff Johnson

Powered by hypermail