Re: Re: feats'n'stuff

From: Markus Battarbee <battery_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:50:37 +0200

Apologies on the slow response times...

Wulf Corbett wrote:
> >that gods are rigid, unchangeable, whereas heroes aren't.
> >A god did only a finite amount of things before the invention
> >of time, but heroes can always create new effects with the
> >powers available to them.
> How can the time before time be finite? Why should the feats enacted
> by Deities be finite? Why, indeed, should they not still be creating
> new wonders, in that time outside time, that we (as characters) are
> only just learning about?

 Because of the cosmic compromise. If gods start doing whatever they  want to, just because they want to, they'll release chaos into the  world once again, destroying everything. Gods can act directly  only when called upon to do so (DI).

> Take Vinga, she has 'Run Across Mud' and
> 'Leap Across Water' - so, at what point of viscosity should you have
> to change movement types? By your definition, Vinga could not treat
> this as a seamless continuum, but the heroes are more powerful than
> their Goddess, and can create magic she did (and possibly could) not.
> Of course, this is exaggerated, but these feats make a nice pair for
> the illustration ("You've got a lovely pair of...erm... feats there,
> Vinga...").

 Yes, heroes can create magic their god might have not created. Heroes  aren't bound by the cosmic compromise - the are given affinities  by their gods (I call these Riimuyhteys in Finnish -  runic/elemental/power affinities) and can draw upon this power,  shaping it by themselves.

 Concidering Vinga's mythical past, it's most probable that she has  run on very many different types of materials - but if there's  a material she hasn't run on (gorp?) it can't be learned as a feat.  I'm not saying there should be only a handful of things a god has done

 A worshipper could well draw upon Vinga's power and run over gorps,  but that'd be with an improvisational modifier. If she does it enough,  perhaps heroforming a heroquest, she can form a subcult that can teach  the Run Over Gorp feat, but it's been done by the herocult founder,  not by Vinga.

> Back to our unnamed fire deity, sometimes he wrapped fire
> round his sword, sometimes he wrapped it round a stick, sometimes he
> just used it bare in a blade. Why shouldn't he, he's a god? And why
> shouldn't our Devotee do so all as one feat, he's just following his
> god.

 The way I approach feats is as heroquest skills - you do a heroquest,  and later on, you can invoke the heroquest in the mundane world.  If you do a lot of heroquesting and learn a lot of feats, you're getting  quite powerful. However, each heroquest has certain facts associated with  it - i.e. the quest where a hero leaped up a waterfall cannot be completed  without a waterfall. In quest X out fire god F did effect Z, whils Y was  happening. The feat Z, IMG, cannot be activated without Y being true.  However, the god did probably do Z1, Z2, ..., Zn and the myths are  just waiting to be found. But they are different feats.  (Sorry for the excessive maths)

 I'm *not* trying to restrics the theoretical or historical powers of  gods! In the great compromise, gods agreed not to directly affect the  mundane world - thus they became bound, only able to act when called upon.  Sure, fire god F can create a whirlwind of fire, even if he never before  has done it, but only with DI. Because he hasn't done it before, there  isn't a myth associated, so it can't be learned as a feat.  If he had created a whirlwind of fire at some point, the associated  feat could be learned by finding the appropriate myth. However, there's  always a new trick that the god hasn't done before...

 When improvising effects (note I'm refraining from using feat here!)  a worshipper draws upon the raw affinity-power of his god, not a known  action. Thus, he has to shape the effect himself, and suffers an  improvisational modifier.

> >Reading the rulebook, it says that initiates can't learn feats
> >- how could initiates then create magic? (Concidering that
> >players create the feats, characters remember them)
> Initiates lean the general myths, not the secret knowledge of
> channelling the god's powers. They work with a weaker connection, so
> they have a lower chance to get it right. I know how to fly a 'plane,
> but it would be a pretty hazardous flight. I can make the attempt, and
> if I succeed, I'll get better, like an Initiate. But until someone
> tells me what all the extra dials & switches do (like a Devotee), I'll
> always be relying on a good bit of luck.

 I don't think a skill like this is too good a comparison. How about this:  Let's try to believe I'm actually literate, and know a lot of works  of literature. I'm good at intertextuality. I can draw upon this knowledge,  this affinity, when having a conversation. However, if I can regularily  recite an exact quote from an important book, I can better convince my  opponent. If I get the quote wrong, remeber only the general idea, or  attempt to bend the quote to better fit my argument, I lose a significant  amount of the power of the quote.

> But the Gods were NOT tied down (well, maybe Uleria...). They lived a
> timeless time, and performed deeds unlimited in time unlimited, every
> deed performed in an unlimited variety of ways. We have simply learned
> as few of those deeds as we have the writings of some nameless
> Egyptian scribe whose marks we see on a broken fragment of tablet.

 I suggest you read a description of the last parts of the LBQ...

Phil Hibbs wrote:
> >Reading the rulebook, it says that initiates can't
> >learn feats - how could initiates then create magic?
> According to Greg, the "correct" way to do this is for an Affinity to be a
> kind of specialised Divine Intervention - "Great Orlanth, send me a wind to
> aid me", roll the dice, and you get some kind of Wind-related help. However,
> this would place too much onus on the narrator to decide what happens all
> the time, and moves the dramatisation to after the die roll instead of
> before, which is less satisfying. So, Initiates can improvise feats using
> their affinity, but they can't "learn" them in the same way as Devotees can.
> I'm not sure if Initiates can use the Affinity directly or not. I think the
> game system is better off (simpler) without direct affinity use. Then again,
> I think it should be usable at full value as a magic resistance ability if
> appropriate.

 The thing I don't like about this approach is this improvisation of feats - if  a player can improvise feats with myths whenever he wants to, with great  personal freedom, the myths become bland, meaningless. With this method,  there'll always be a myth available, for every deed, as long as the player  comes up with it. Since that shouldn't be too hard, the cults will end up with  an abundance of near-similar myths, none of which aer truly spectacular.

 I'd say a player improvising an _effect_ from an affinity can create a significant
 magical effect. A character with a movement affinity but no jumping feats could  use his movement affinity to propel him to his destination, but I'd assign a  much higher resistance than for a character using a feat that fits the situation.
 For example, if both characters have their movement affinity at 10W, the first  character could IMO leap onto a ledge 2,5m tall. The second character, using  a specific feat, could leap onto a ledge 5m tall. (rough off-hand estimates)

Graham Robinson wrote:
> > > Because "avoid lightning" can be used at full chance to dodge lightning, but
> > > "aerial maneuvering" would take an improv penalty, IMO. "Avoid" could even
> > > be interpreted as a simple ability test.
> Actually this was someone else.

 Yes, sorry, that was Phil.

> > Exactly - people should use feats for what they are meant for.
> > Rules-wise, assigning an improvisational modifier to a feat gives the
> > same effect as assigning it to an affinity, so this is really just a
> > matter of which word to use. I wouldn't give a devotee who knows AM but
> > doesn't know AL any less modifiers than an initiate in attempting to avoid
> > lightning.
> This is true. Avoid Lightening is a specific feat that anyone with the
> affinity should be able to use, if only with an improv. modifier. However,
> if there isn't a feat that quite covers it, and the GM doesn't want to
> introduce a new one - for a variety of reasons - then using an existing
> one with an improv. modifier seems reasonable.

 That's my point - I don't want to have introducing new feats the standard  practise. If a player-hero imprivises an effect, and I really like it, he  might receive a divine message or something explaining a previously  unknown myth where his/her god did the exact same thing. Otherwise, it's  just harnessing the magical energies your god grants you - i.e.  improviding an effect, not a feat. (Nitpicking, yes, I know.)

> However, in general I'd just up the resistance of the world a little and
> make it a simple contest. I like simple contests.

 The in-game effect is virtually the same as giving a larger / smaller  improvisational modifier. Lowering the resistance sounds nicer than  giving a large bonus to the target number though... ;)

> > I simply disagree here. HW p183: "Initiates may not learn feats
> > or the secret of their god." How should initiates use magic then?
> They may not learn feats, but they must improvise feats to use their
> affinities.
>
> Perhaps it might help to look at feats and affinities slightly
> differently. Basically, I look at all magic performed by theists as being
> the result of their prayers being answered. They call on the power of
> their god, who responds by enabling them to perform actions normally
> beyond them. The affinities and feats are there to describe the areas in
> which the god can (or will) respond. The myths behind the feats act as
> guides to the areas in which they can be used, but this is not
> heroquesting, you do not have to become your god to perform his feats.
>
> The target number of an affinity (and the feats known by a devotee) to me
> represent the person's depth of knowledge of the god's
> mysteries. Devotees have more knowledge, access to deeper secrets, and
> thus can learn specific feats.
>
> In other words, feats and affinities are just a game mechanic. What they
> represent in Glorantha is far more complex and varied.

 Excellently put. If I were to think of feats and affinities in that manner,  the 'official' (?) game mechanic owuld suit me just fine. I just don't like  the idea of a god's consciousness turning to every devotee each time they  invoke magic. I think of magic in the following way: A Character dedicates  his magical powers (his soul) to his god, and represents this with worship,  transferring his dedication to his god. This increases the power of the god.  In return, the god issues a credit card, and the more devoted a person is,  the better his credit limit. Whenever a worshipper creates magic, he uses the  credit card (affinity) without the god having to pay any attention. I think  of feats as discount coupons - try using a burger coupon at the wrong chain

 Don't know how well put into words that was, but it should work as a  counter-argument. Since rules attempt to simulate how the world works,  the rules system used must be different if the way the world works is  different...

-B

Powered by hypermail