>From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_...>
>
>I wouldn't make "Diplomat" a Heortling keyword at all.
We were discussing the Diplomat keyword, and so I just continued it with the example, using the two best known cultures. Didn't even stop to think if it was appropriate. But, of course, a character should only have an occupation that makes sense for the homeland.
>YGWV, of course, so you can make it for an individual (as has been
>mentioned). But this rather defies the the idea of a Keyword as being
>a definition of a group.
Well, as I've said, I draw the line at the point where it is simply a description of the individual's experience, and require it to be the description of some group, even if tiny or theoretical. Because if you do allow it to be the individual's experience, then pretty much have to allow everything in the world into the keyword. "Oh, I'm a Diplomat, but was taught fencing so I could deal with the Ramestian court, so that goes in my keyword." To allow fencing in, the player in my game would at least have to argue that this was standard training for all such diplomats.
> > ...would it make sense to have the same
> > survival skills for a Heortling from Boldhome as it would for a
>Heortling
> > who lives out in the hinterlands?
>
>One could, but you'd have to decide if there is a significent
>difference would be that between between an urban and a wilderness
>dweller. But is dwelling place the key to be used in a keyword? I'd
>suggest not. The profession would, however. I'd suggest that a Keyword
>of Potter, for instance, implies the urban nature of the job.
Well, the Heortling keyword has the ability "Farmer" in it. This may or may not be something that Boldhomers know, I can't say. Maybe this is a bad example. But I can certainly imagine a culture which is largely agrarian, where Farmer might be suitable for 99% of the people in the culture. But where there is a city where people live all their lives and know nothing of farming, despite thinking of themselves as part of the culture in question.
In that case, does it make sense to make it a new cultural keyword?
Put another way, it seems to be certain to be true - if it's not the same culture, even if the name is the same, it should get a different keyword, right? And cultures can theoretically be very small.
I'm not saying one should subdivide cultures where there are similarities. I'm saying that where there are differences, you have new cultures, right?
>I'd say that you are wasting the potential of a Keyword this way.
>It is dwelling on the diferences rather than ont he similarities, and
>Keywords are essentially designed to mark the similarities.
Sure, and that's why these keywords are so sparse on abilities, I think. One shouldn't be taking very specific cultural keywords in order to get the specific abilities of that narrower group. But instead taking them if the abilities of that specific group are different from the original group. If they X-lings don't farm, then they shouldn't have farmer in their keyword, no? If a particular village doesn't know how to assess social status, but instead are communitarian or something, unlike the rest of their culture, then their keyword should reflect that, no?
And should they have diplomats (or Village Speakers or whatever), these should have keywords specific to that small culture...even if there's only one diplomat currently employed in that culture. No?
> > Kolating from the Lismelder Village of Spearstand?
>
>Kolating: a religious Keyword, and significantly different from other
>religions.
Well, I don't want to get into how that's a modular part of the homeland keyword as presented. So let's just drop that clause for argument's sake.
>As for "Lismelder Village of Spearstand," to me this implies that
>there is a skill set that is different from a Colymar village from
>anywhere. But there isn't., at a Keyword level.
I should stay away from Glorantha examples. But let's say we made up Spearstand - I made up the name. Are we not allowed to say that it might have differences because there's a keyword that already covers it? From another perspective, can't we say that they're not Heortling, but just something similar to Heortlings? If our Glorantha should vary so?
>Differences would be fond at specialty words within the keyword set.
>IF THEY EVEN NEEDED TO BE DEFINED.
>
>If someone said to me, "Hey, I'm from the Lismelder and we know a lot
>about undead. Can I used my Keyword skill to determine what kind of
>undead these are?" I'd say "Yes."
Sure, but if it were the case that Boldhomers couldn't farm, and a character tried to use his Farming ability from his keyword? Then what?
> > Then, if so, can the occupations be taken specifically down to that
>level,
> > too? Diplomat Kolating from the Lismelder Village of Spearstand?
>
>No such thing. Not among Heortlings.
Can I take the Diplomat Old City Cult from the Green Lake Colony, then? Given that this does, in fact, exist in my game? And is distinct from the similar, and related, but substantively different Rhiani culture? To use something I can speak authoritatively about since it was created in my game.
> > It's pretty simple to just limit to something like a "national" level
>for
> > culture. And that works fine. But I like to allow a bit more
>flexibility.
>
>I'd say that this is not being flexible, but rather narrowing the
>definitions.
But, if and where it's actually being flexible and not narrowing larger, still appropriate keywords? Is that OK?
> > And so that's why I've gotten to the criteria that I currently use.
>Which is
> > that the character's keywords simply have to be indicative of some type,
> > even if imaginary. Just so long as the abilities involved can't be said
>to
> > be just things that the character picked up despite the keyword.
> >
> > That's pretty broad. But I'm testing it in use, and, for the very little
> > that I've used it, so far, so good.
>
>YGWV
No, my HQWV. This is about the rules in use, not about what cultures they're
specific to. This applies to Glorantha as well, because not all cultures are
fully enumerated.
Or are they? Have all the keywords that should exist for cultures (even one's attempted) been created? That is, are there no Heortlings, or near-Heortlings if you want to be technical, that are exceptions to the Heortling keyword? Or any of the other cultures in the book? What about the Pol Joni? Or do they use the Praxian keyword? Or do they deserve their own keyword? If the answer is that they don't, are there no cultures that do?
Yes, in play when I use these ideas, and given that I allow players to pretty much define their cultures themselves, this does end up with cultures being created that are specific to the player's need for that culture, often creating exceptions to rules. But I have no problem with that - in fact this creativity actually makes the game world grow and become much richer by finding those exceptions. This is how things like Kolatings and Pol-Joni show up in my games.
We don't really disagree here then, do we?
Mike
Powered by hypermail