>From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_...>
>
>Asking me concrete questions is always helpful to get a concrete answer.
I was.
> > 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.
>
>So we agree on that?
Absolutely. The goal of this conversation, from my POV, is to determine a best practices criteria for what abilities are found in a keyword.
>For me, I'd make it an individual thing that defines the culture. That
>is the point of being an individual. The Keywords are guidelines to
>show how "everyone" is.
Yes, so you keep reiterating. The question isn't whether that's the case, but how large (or small) "everyone" is as a group.
> > 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.
>
>I hadn't looked at the Keywords before making my statements.
>If I had I'd've said that "Farmer" ought to be "Rural" or something.
Fine. But that's avoiding the point. As Andy says, then shouldn't the "Rural" be replaced by "Urban" for those from Boldhome? Or do the Boldhomers get out enough that they really aren't all that rural?
> > But, apparently your view is that the abilities listed under keywords
>are
> > optional? Or simply informative?
...
>I actually think that the Keywords should be mandatory, including
>(most of) the Personality Traits. I was shocked to learn that there
>are a lot of player characters who do not Fear Dragons, for instance.
I'm not sure what you mean by mandatory here. That a Heortling have a Heortling homeland keyword? Or that it not be altered from the version written in the book?
> > 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.
>
>I believe that is correct.
>On this subject, though--I think it is wrong to just list things that
>are at the same level as the Keyword. I've seen some characters that
>have listed a host of descriptors under the Keyword that are all the
>same, and the same as the Keyword. To me this is minimaxing and not in
>the spirit of the game.
OK, but that's not the subject at hand. Are you saying that no new abilities should ever be introduced under keywords? If new abilities are allowed, what's the criteria?
> > What I'm getting down to here is what abilities am I allowed to write
>down
> > on the character sheet along with a keyword?
>
>Anythign you want, if you can jusify it to me as a GM.
>But in general, things that the character excels at, or that are
>different from the norm.
I wasn't being clear again. Instead of "along with the keyword" I should have written, "As part of the keyword." That is, I take Heortling... what do I get for abilities along with that keyword.
If the criteria you cite is "anything you want, if you can justify it to me" my next question will be, what criteria do you, Greg, use to decide if something comes from 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?
>
>Yes.
Not sure if I'm being clear here. If I have three abilities listed under the keyword, and they are all appropriate augments to a contest, can I augment with them all? Or only once (making keywords somewhat like affinities in this regard)?
> > The
> > "abilities" in the keyword only there to give an idea of the breadth of
> > these broad abilities?
>
>Yes.
So I can't augment with them more than once? As Jane says, that would make the abilities listed under the keyword far less important. I'd just stop worrying about this altogether if I played that way.
But I wouldn't play that way, because I'd miss the way I currently play where the abilities from keywords are just abilities. Which is what the rules seem to say.
> > So keywords should be defined at the level at which character
> > differentiation is likely to matter? Is that the principle involved?
>
>That's a fair definition. Read the rules on Page 17: "If your
>character has the Keyword, he has all the abilities detailed in it." I
>think that's pretty clear.
Clear, certainly, but useless, since it doesn't define what a keyword is. Rather it doesn't tell us how to judge what belongs in a keyword other than a general sense from the examples. The problem is that extrapolating from the examples, you run into the problems that I'm trying to elucidate here.
>If I'm playing a game where cultural conflict between a Texan, a
>Californian and a Rhode Islander are significent it doesn't make any
>sense to just have American as the cultural Keyword. But if the game
>is about the differences between being American, Chinese and Swahili,
>then the differentiation between parts of the US are insignificent by
>comparison--they are local color for the players.
OK, so for the book standard level, you have "Heortling" as the appropriate level. But understanding that there are differences between a Heortling from Boldhome and a Lismelder. And we don't have to worry about it much, beacuse I can only augment with the abilities that I get from the keyword once?
Do I have it now?
> > 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?
>
>You said you are asking me how I would play my game. I would play it
>by talkign to the player and finding out what he wants, and then
>working out the grounds in which that would manifest in the keywords.
Not trying to be a pest, but could you give an example? This seems very vague to me. "Just do it."
> >> ? Keywords include hundreds of Abilities, but they are 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.
>
>That is what the book says.
No, it says that broad abilities can be made into keywords. Implying that some are not. Further, it seems to me to say that keywords involve getting abilities, which implies that one can augment with them (might even be explicit about this).
>Diplomat is an occupation. I can imagine that there might be a family
>whose ancestral occupation is to be diplomats, just as others might be
>soldiers or gong farmers. But unless I was playign something really
>close and tight, I'd not make it part of a cultural keyword.
>Look at Medieval French culture: it includes nobles, clergy, serfs and
>a few merchants. Theya re all still French culture.
You're missing my point again. I'm trying to discern the criteria for what goes in a player's selected Diplomat Occupation keyword. It's been said that the definition of an occupation are those abilities that a character of that occupation *from that culture* would have. Thus one culture's warriors use spears, and another typically use swords.
The point I was making is that, if this is true, and if cultures can be small, then the occupations can be defined in pretty local terms, as well. Not individual to the hero in question, but with perhaps an arbitrarily small group. So long as it is still a group of some sort.
There are several assumptions in there of which we are now trying to discern the veracity.
> > 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...
>
>You'll have to decide, then, whether your Glorantha varies or not.
>What I've done in HQ is set down a general set of rules for things,
>like the keywords. You can choose to use those rules or not. YGWV.
But this rule is not clear yet. I can't choose to use it or ignore it until I understand it first.
>Use concrete examples and I can answer concretely.
If I have a warrior from Boldhome who is trying to find water in a forest, does he get the Heortling "Rural" ability to use, or not?
Here's the thing. If you're saying that there are differences between Lismelders and Colymar that can affect outcomes mechanically, but that you should still use the same Heortling keyword to represent them both... that seems like you're making a somewhat pointless distinction.
Mike
Powered by hypermail