> Quoting Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...>:
>> 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.
Actually, the old canon about the Orlanthi said "every man a farmer, just like Orlanth himself". I'd treat this cultural keyword ability "farmer" as something used in ritual rather than as an occupation.
>> 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.
Which is IMO a Bad Rule (capitals intended). In my experience, players prefer to have positively named skills. Rather than giving everybody an ability "Fear Dragons" flaw at say 5W, I would have given everybody an ability "Overcome Fear of Dragons" at 6, and make that a mandatory roll if faced with draconic opposition. The outcome of that roll would make a modifier for that scene.
Other solutions: An ability "Draconic Presence" for all draconic entities, quantifying the fear potential.
Also, if every non-Kralori human has this flaw, it is part of the human keyword rather than a cultural one. However, I suspect that fear is not specific to humans, but includes elder races and minor races as well, so it becomes a draconic ability.
At least in my game I don't tend to clutter the character sheets with the obvious.
>> 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.
Leading back to the problem that a player wants to write down things he knows he can do. Players unfamiliar with the setting, or with aspects of it that might apply, will want a list of things they know they are likely to succeed at, coming from their background (and possibly tossed into a situation where few people share that background, i.e. being heroic).
> 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.
Trouble is that a game is likely to switch between these modes all the time. Between voyages, a hero band spends some time at home to refresh cultural identity, and all of the sudden these differences flare up.
> You ask how I would do it in my game.
> 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.
Looking at it in a slightly different way, it is three layers of culture sharing places and rulers, with a limited range of interactions: you have a peasantry, a somewhat literate and somewhat celibate clergy (with retainers), and an aristocracy including knights and acculturated servants. Urban culture may be another exception, but possibly limited to very few places.
This is not too different from Dara Happa with Yelmic families (including household retainers), Weeders, and Lodrili wet farmers. Urban Dara Happa and Rural Dara Happa are different cultures if you look at the peasantry.
While religion and culture are somewhat separate, they aren't exactly separable.
Mike Holmes
>>From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_...>
>>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.
Or whether small groups (hero bands, blood lines...) qualify as modified keywords, or as keyword modifiers (which I would prefer).
>>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?
Is the Heortling "Fear Dragon" different from say the Carmanian "Fear Dragon" (e.g. around 1210 in Carmanian-controlled Saird, 90 years after the Dragonkill)?
Powered by hypermail