Re: "Sufficient" detail

From: Anthony Utano <Anthony.Utano_at_...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:31:45 -0000

<deleted>

> 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.

This is exactly the problem that I have with the system. We have a wonderful rich and delightfully ambiguous mythology, and it is _ruined_ by being forced into a couple of 'affinities' each of 1-3 words. How many people really think that the full flavour of a vast set of myths can be described in 10 words !!!?

Anthony

Powered by hypermail