Re: Ho Much Rule fiddling Is Tolerable?

From: ttrotsky2 <TTrotsky_at_diW7N-xKXV8i75ZB_4jgsKJRmYvP1yG-tkrbIbiLj-PL9PBU9_r60nfcGvdg_n4-6pI>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:07:07 -0000

Jeff Kyer:

>

> One of the reasons why later HQ had more generic names for feats and
> spells was the overly dogmatic interpretation of several posters and
> their vociferous complaints about it during the early days of HW.
> That was a design decision that I was never happy with.

I, on the other hand, was very happy with it. Granted, its less atmospheric, which is a pity, but if you're going to simply name spells, without describing them (and there are sound reasons as to why HQ takes this approach), it's important that readers be able to deduce what the spell does from the name. And that requires simple, relatively unambiguous names. There's no point having rules if nobody can understand them.

-- 
Trotsky
Gamer and Skeptic

------------------------------------------------------
Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/