Keyword Restrictiveness

[Gelasma]

The question for the thread is how lenient are you in allowing abilities to be argued in to keywords? [...] At what point do you say to a player, Hey, that's not under a keyword? How tightly do you reign players in on this? What criteria do you use?

As we dont play on Glorantha, but on your own game world, thus all our keywords are designed by the players. Usualy the designer of a keyword decides what belongs to it, but the group as a whole can veto if they think its interpretation is too broad.

We use a 100-word description to define the keywords, and this description is our main criteria wheter a trait is part of a keyword or not. We dont use lists of examples, as they are only a partial description and dont really help to decide what other traits belong to a keyword. While a 100-word description covers the whole range of the keyword, and makes clearer what belongs to it and what not.

[Mike Holmes]

Paul, well, I think the rules don't quite read that way. But, then it's been a while since I reviewed them, and I may be drifting myself, too. So I'm going to go and read them tonight, and get back with some analysis. I think that this discussion is being hampered by the fact that it's probably not all that clear from the rules just what they are precisely.

That said, check the aforementioned article out, Paul.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Hey Mike. Any further views?

I've been thinking about this lately, as the idea of using Keywords just as augments has popped up in my head. I think that would sidestep this question a bit, but maybe it wouldn't really.

I did have a character recently in game who was an assassin. In making the keyword, she kept arguing for broader and broader things. I tried to keep it to what applies to an assassin generally, not one from her particular school.

[Thor Olavsrud]

I've been thinking about this lately, as the idea of using Keywords just as augments has popped up in my head. I think that would sidestep this question a bit, but maybe it wouldn't really.

I'm not sure that would do the trick, simply because it doesn't address the issue of what happens when you spend a Hero Point to increase an ability. Afterall, if it comes from your Keyword, spending a point gives you the ability at 18 (assuming Keywords start at the standard 17). If it doesn't come from your Keyword, spending a point gives you the ability at 13.

On the whole, I have to say I'm in pretty full agreement with Mike on this issue. It seems to me that there are several solutions to your Assassin Keyword problem. Either you treat it as an Intersection of the Homeland Keyword with the Occupation Keyword, as Mike and Ralph described earlier, or you could come up with a new Keyword that describes the [School] Assassin.

However, I think the idea that's truest to HQ is to move that stuff over to the 'Magic' Keyword, assuming it's appropriate. HQ Keywords seem to have a sort of nested hierarchy, though it's loose. In other words, all characters have a Homeland Keyword. The Occupation Keyword describes a subset of folks from that Homeland. And generally, the Magic Keyword (assuming it's Specialized), describes a subset of folks from that Occupation. Mike reinforces that with his Shadow World game, in which players may choose to use a second or more specialized Occupation Keyword in place of the Magic Keyword.

I think this gives us the criteria we need to determine appropriate Keyword abilities too:
1. Is this something all* people from this Homeland could be reasonably expected to be able to do? Then you can create it from the Homeland Keyword (* Orlanthi 'All'?)

2. Is this something all people in this Occupation that come from this Homeland can be reasonably expected to be able to do? Then you can create it from the Occupation Keyword.

3. Is this something that all people in this Religion that is part of this Occupation from this Homeland can be reasonably expected to be able to do? Then you can create it from the Religion/Magic Keyword.

Clearly, if you don't play in Glorantha and your setting's religion/magic is not 'occupational,' this won't work that well. But that's an issue for QuestWorlds, not HeroQuest.

[lightcastle]

Afterall, if it comes from your Keyword, spending a point gives you the ability at 18 (assuming Keywords start at the standard 17). If it doesn't come from your Keyword, spending a point gives you the ability at 13.

Actually, my thought was I would just insist all abilities start at 13 no matter what.

We did just make up an Assassin keyword by tweaking Thief. (Although there is an assassin coming in ILH-2 if I recall correctly.)

And we did do it by that very solution. Is it something I think an Orlanthi all of people in this profession/homeland can do? Then it is in.

[Mike Holmes]

LC, that works mechanically, but again it voids the advantages I see with lists of keyword abilities. That is, sometimes the player should get +10 from the keyword, not just +2. And when that happens depends on what's listed under them. Again, I strongly resist the tendency that I'm seeing for people to want to downplay the part of keywords, and to play up the role of independently purchased abilities. This makes for "thin" characters, IMO. I want to consider whether or not "Make Camp" is an augment when being ambushed at night, in addition to the other soldierly abilities. That creates an understanding of the effectiveness of a character that's much deeper than just looking at the fact that he's good with a sword. And, further, the differences between these keywords then heightens the uniqueness of the keywords (remember I advocate making your own occupation keyword up to reflect your culture and other unique qualities behind the character).

This is precisely what Eero apparently does. And, yes, I very much think that it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


That said, Thor, I think you're reading in a bit. Quite interestingly, IMO, I see these combinations not as nested, but as cross-products. For example, one can be a warrior, but be a practitioner of a spirit that's about fertility. Perhaps a guardian of some sacred fertility ground. The point is that I don't see there being any automatic limiting on what occupation goes with what magic. Yes there will tend to be cultural limits and some combinations will be rare or non-existant. But that's based on the in-game situation, and isn't a mechanical requirement to start.

As such, I see them as just combinations. The existance of the occupation, for instance, informs the culture as much as the culture informs the occupation. The existance of a special sort of outrider occupation in a horse tribe indicates a knowledge of this in the homeland keyword, as an obvious example.

In any case, I don't do what you've said, precisely. That is, I don't allow one to trade a magic keyword for an additional occupation. The confusion comes regarding the fact that I basically allow everyone to have an additional occupation (see Special Abilities), and that I don't require anyone to take a specialized or common magic keyword. The reason for this, is that I see deciding not to have a specialized keyword as a statement about the character's current level of devotion in his beliefs. It's actually just as interesting to not take a SM Keyword as it is to take one, as you can potentially pick one up later in play (or the abilities thereof).

But, yes, to keep keywords tailored appropriately I think it's a very important idea to have them listed out in some detail.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Hmm...

I can see your point about sometimes a player should get more advantage off a keyword than other times. The more the action falls in his bailiwick, the better the bonus. That makes some sense.

I think the fear I have is that it turns the Keyword into just a skill list (well, with some cultural relationships and attitudes as well).  And once you've listed out the skills in a keyword, the issue of what has NOT been enumerated comes up. (It's the bill of rights argument writ small.  *grin*)

As you yourself have brought up before, just because something isn't listed doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. But deciding if it should or shouldn't can be tricky.  A lot of this probably can be handled by just having a good social contract with players and being willing to hash out something that makes sense.  And, to be honest, I'm not sure my solution avoids the problem in the end.

All of which brings us back to the question of what criteria to use to decide if something should or shouldn't be added to a keyword; and how many of these somethings should there be?