Irony. Where I think we agree, you disagree that we're agreeing. But in the one case where you think we agree, I disagree. More specifically...
>From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_...>
>
> > 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.
>
>As well you may! IThe key is YGWV, of courfse, I am just trying to
>contriburte something of the designer's intentions on this.
I don't know how to say this nicely, but the YGMVs don't help at all. I'm aware of the principle. I should, perhaps be more specific, and ask if what I'm doing is how you'd run your game. Because that's primarily what I'm looking for. "Do whatever you want" is something I intend to do anyhow. I'd like to know if others think it's a good idea first.
> > 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.
>
>But the Keyword isn't about the "individual's experience." It is about
>the cultural, religious or professional norm.
This is, in fact, the point I was ineloquently trying to make, and giving another reason why it's problematic to do it this way.
> > "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.
>
>I agree 100%. Just because a player wants something isn't a reason to
>alter the nature of the world.
Uh, actually, this is where I disagree. I quite often make whole moons disappear from canon, if, in fact, a player needs it to have his character look cool in a scene, for instance. Canon means very little to me.
What I was trying to say, again, is that the above criteria is bad, because, if you allow a player to make such arguments, there is no creative limit whatsoever in the keyword, and it has no meaning or use in play.
> > Well, the Heortling keyword has the ability "Farmer" in it. This may or
>may
> > not be something that Boldhomers know, I can't say.
>
>The Boldhome residents who are Farmers certainlyu would have this.
>It's a profession keyword. But the potters wouldn't have this.
See, apparently you have a different opinion of how the keywords work. That is, the Heortling keyword presented in the book says that Heortlings have farming. If, in fact, keywords are about similarities, then, it seems to me to be saying that all Heortlings with this unmodified keyword have that ability and can use it in contests, augment with it, etc.
But, apparently your view is that the abilities listed under keywords are optional? Or simply informative? Mechanically they're important, because (unless I'm playing incorrectly, and that's possible), you can't augment with an ability that's not written on the character sheet, but can with one that is.
What I'm getting down to here is what abilities am I allowed to write down on the character sheet along with a keyword?
I know a group that plays that keywords are simply broad abilities, and that you can only augment once with a keyword...is that the intent? The "abilities" in the keyword only there to give an idea of the breadth of these broad abilities?
>NOTE that it also depends ont he game. If I am going to run a game set
>entirely in Yuthuppa, then I can make the Cultures to define the
>neighborhoods. But if there is going to be a variety of peoples, they
>would need to be larger.
So keywords should be defined at the level at which character differentiation is likely to matter? Is that the principle involved?
> > 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?
>
>Not offhand, I would say.
>Subculture? Yea. But we'd have to know the point of having the divisions.
Well, presumably in the case in question it's that the people playing the game are concerned with the division. They see some difference, and want to highlight it. That's not enough?
>? Keywords include hundreds of Abilities, but they ae shared.
>Abilities are to list specialties and difference of individuals within
>a culture.
That seems to indicate that my suspicion above is correct, that keywords are simply broad abilties.
> > 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?
>
>No. Diplomat is a occupation, not part of the cultural keyword.
What I'm saying is that, in defining the Diplomat keyword, would you not make it appropriate to this smaller culture? That seems to follow from what you are saying.
>I'll just say: religion and occupation are not part of the culural keyword.
I didn't think that occupation was. But to clarify something that I've wondered about for a while, the religions, though the keywords for them are listed on the homeland page, are not part of the homelands. Instead perhaps listed there as keyword options available to the people of the homeland in question?
> > 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?
>
>You need to determine how diffeent or similiar, depending on the
>circumstances and needs of play.
So you'd advocate having no hard and fast rule, but to make these judgments differently in ever case? I'm fond of rules, you know...
> > Or any of the other cultures in the book? What about the
> > Pol Joni? Or do they use the Praxian keyword?
>
>No, not by a long shot. They would hav ea PolJoni cultural keyword.
This is what I've been on about. See, the descriptions of the PolJoni that I've seen come down to "Heortling tribe transplanted into Prax." Now I'm sure I could do some research and find out how much of a simplification this is, I'm sure. But my point is that, in fact, this is the example I'm looking for. These are "Heortlings" who are different enough to merit their own keyword.
If you're saying that a Homeland keyword only applies to people of that culture, that's a tautology. The question becomes how different a culture has to be before you'd give them their own keyword? It seems that, at once, your answer is that you'd always give them their own keyword in that you'd say that some Heortlings can farm, and others not, from their cultural keyword. But then also that this is not about giving them their own keyword.
I'm not following.
> > Or do they deserve their own
> > keyword? If the answer is that they don't, are there no cultures that
>do?
>
>The question is too broad or me to wrap my head around.
>Are the AldaChur Sartarites culturally different enough to have their
>own keyword? No, not to me. They are Heortlings.
>The Volsaxi? To me, they are still Heortlings.
Yes, but do they get a +2 for a Farming ability when they're fighting inside a barn? Another bad example. Try to respond to the mechanical principle that I'm trying to discern.
>But overall, there is no disageement.
Still agree that we're not disagreeing? Or, rather, do you see better now where my interest lies here?
I think that it's interesting that Rory's response was significantly different. But I might be misreading one of you.
Mike
Powered by hypermail