Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I read through the merchanting information for the first time a moment ago - https://www.play.net/gs4/info/merchantguide.asp - and came across the following:
<<Extremely risque lingerie and sex toys are not allowed.
Haven't laughed so much for a good while. Now I'm wondering what's people may have asked for in the way of alterations!! This tickled my somewhat bawdy British sense of humour.
On a more serious note, I thought we weren't allowed to have racial references in alterations these days. So we could have a dwarven-crafted axe but not a dwarven axe.
However I read the following:
<< Racial Items:
<<Items with racial names are acceptable so long as they make sense. For example, an elven bow or a dwarven axe would be fine. Dark elf socks don't make much sense though, and would probably be rejected.
Is my understanding flawed or is this information out of date?
-
Bremerial - Chair of the 'Bring the Highman Games to Kharam-Dzu' Committee
_____________________________
Warrior Interviews - Have you been interviewed yet? - http://www.assessrisk.com/personal/gs4_30.htm
AIM: warriorbremerial
Thanks Farmer
-
Bremerial - Chair of the 'Bring the Highman Games to Kharam-Dzu' Committee
_____________________________
Warrior Interviews - Have you been interviewed yet? - http://www.assessrisk.com/personal/gs4_30.htm
AIM: warriorbremerial
-
Bremerial - Chair of the 'Bring the Highman Games to Kharam-Dzu' Committee
_____________________________
Warrior Interviews - Have you been interviewed yet? - http://www.assessrisk.com/personal/gs4_30.htm
AIM: warriorbremerial
<<<On a more serious note, I thought we weren't allowed to have racial references in alterations these days. So we could have a dwarven-crafted axe but not a dwarven axe.>>>
<<<However I read the following:>>>
<< Racial Items:
<<Items with racial names are acceptable so long as they make sense. For example, an elven bow or a dwarven axe would be fine. Dark elf socks don't make much sense though, and would probably be rejected.>>
This is a very weird and inconsistent area, I've found. It seems that some types of objects are considered so easily recognizable, they pass the mustard. Apparently, elven bows and dwarven axes are distinctive enough to make sense. But unfortunately, this judgment seems rather arbitrary.
I've tried multiple times to get a halfling longbow done. According to Elanthian history, halflings are rather accomplished archers, and I see no reason a halfling bow should be any less distinctive than an elven bow. Perhaps even more so, since in addition to whatever unique styling might set them apart, they are necessarily smaller than their Elven counterparts. Oddly, I actually DO have a dwarven long bow, that I bought off the shelf many years ago. That is apparently acceptable, though I can't fathom why.
Now here's the really sticky part. They won't allow a halfling longbow, but they WILL allow a halfling-crafted longbow. Um, what? I have a halfling-crafted hunting bow I just love, but I can't for the life of me wrap my mind around how seeing "halfling crafting" is somehow more kosher than just "halfling" which, for all intents and purposes, is saying exactly the same thing.
I DO have a suit of halfling leathers. Not halfling-crafted, just halfling. Why are halfling leathers distinctive, but a halfling bow is not? They're both small, right? I presume there must be some sort of commonly recognizable style involved. Why is that style not also identifiable on a bow?
This is an incredibly wobbly subject, one that I think has been victimized by excessive logic. Sometimes, a more general descriptor (like 'halfling' or 'elven' or 'dwarven') does a better job of describing what we are seeing than more elaborate, specific wording. When you think of a suit of 'halfling leathers' it calls to the imagination a certain image. The image may differ from person to person, but we GET it. It's a shortcut that has been much derided, but serves a useful purpose. It's reasonable to assume most adventurers might have had exposure to the various races, if not cultures, at least enough to recognize the difference between an elven bow and a halfling bow.
~ Heathyr and friends
<<<However I read the following:>>>
<< Racial Items:
<<Items with racial names are acceptable so long as they make sense. For example, an elven bow or a dwarven axe would be fine. Dark elf socks don't make much sense though, and would probably be rejected.>>
This is a very weird and inconsistent area, I've found. It seems that some types of objects are considered so easily recognizable, they pass the mustard. Apparently, elven bows and dwarven axes are distinctive enough to make sense. But unfortunately, this judgment seems rather arbitrary.
I've tried multiple times to get a halfling longbow done. According to Elanthian history, halflings are rather accomplished archers, and I see no reason a halfling bow should be any less distinctive than an elven bow. Perhaps even more so, since in addition to whatever unique styling might set them apart, they are necessarily smaller than their Elven counterparts. Oddly, I actually DO have a dwarven long bow, that I bought off the shelf many years ago. That is apparently acceptable, though I can't fathom why.
Now here's the really sticky part. They won't allow a halfling longbow, but they WILL allow a halfling-crafted longbow. Um, what? I have a halfling-crafted hunting bow I just love, but I can't for the life of me wrap my mind around how seeing "halfling crafting" is somehow more kosher than just "halfling" which, for all intents and purposes, is saying exactly the same thing.
I DO have a suit of halfling leathers. Not halfling-crafted, just halfling. Why are halfling leathers distinctive, but a halfling bow is not? They're both small, right? I presume there must be some sort of commonly recognizable style involved. Why is that style not also identifiable on a bow?
This is an incredibly wobbly subject, one that I think has been victimized by excessive logic. Sometimes, a more general descriptor (like 'halfling' or 'elven' or 'dwarven') does a better job of describing what we are seeing than more elaborate, specific wording. When you think of a suit of 'halfling leathers' it calls to the imagination a certain image. The image may differ from person to person, but we GET it. It's a shortcut that has been much derided, but serves a useful purpose. It's reasonable to assume most adventurers might have had exposure to the various races, if not cultures, at least enough to recognize the difference between an elven bow and a halfling bow.
~ Heathyr and friends
I don't understand why we should have halfling, elven, dwarven anything. I mean, over the past few years they have given certain items in cultures their own names, for instance with Erithian culture they named the clothing and weapons with specific names. I think they should just do the same with all racially specific items.
When I see something like halfing longbow... I think "Oh look, someone made a halfling into a longbow." When I see elven backpack...well, you get the point. When I was younger, playing this game, I thought it was awesome to get your culture/race put in things. I made a number of bad Dhe'nar (insert item name here.) creations. Now, I'd rather just describe its racial/cultural characteristics in a show.
---
The Tehir and the Illistimi's string puller
<<I know merchanting sessions for me usually end with me huddled in a corner, rasping about "Judgment Day" and talking about Terminators. --Auchand
<<<When I see something like halfing longbow... I think "Oh look, someone made a halfling into a longbow." When I see elven backpack...well, you get the point. When I was younger, playing this game, I thought it was awesome to get your culture/race put in things. I made a number of bad Dhe'nar (insert item name here.) creations. Now, I'd rather just describe its racial/cultural characteristics in a show.>>>
LOL! That's a point well taken, and no doubt the reason for the policy shift. It's just terribly inconsistent. There are, I'm sure, more exceptions than there are standards.
I still can't see how "halfling-crafted" would be any more acceptable than "halfling" since they say the same thing, i.e., "here's a bow with features that identify it as being crafted by/for halflings". Now we may argue that such features should be described rather than alluded to, and that's fine. As it stands, one is accepted and one is not. I suppose for our part, we should steer away from such usage altogether. But sometimes it not only makes sense, it's the most effective, succinct way to convey our meaning.
It seems like the longer the game goes, the greater the propensity towards excessive verbosity. Our descriptions get longer and more detailed, the words we use become more obscure, and our style altogether more verbose. Looking at some people's descriptions is like reading Shakespeare. And I'm sorry to say, for some it's a form of literary snobbery. We've all met them. These are the folks with every last detail of their character altered in the most flowery, unapproachable prose possible. They've forgotten the most essential goal of writing is to communicate your message effectively. If half your readers can't wade through your description without a dictionary and half an hour to spare, well...something has gone seriously awry.
That's why I don't mind the occasional racial reference. While it's true I may not know exactly what a "halfling" styled bow looks like, I accept that my character does, in exactly the same way most of us could tell a Roman helmet from a Japanese helmet. A single word calls the image to mind, saving us time and screen real-estate. If we want to describe precisely what makes such an item distinctive, that's what "show" descriptions are for.
Naturally, this is only one opinion. It's really a matter of taste and style. There's not a "right" or "wrong" way about it, except for purposes of maintaining a consistent style and atmosphere within the game world. After all, what we are essentially doing is "reading" a game. And just like reading a novel, we don't want to be continually interrupted with sudden, jarring changes of style. That's why we have QC.
Sometimes, however, QC is simply wrong. ;)
~ Heathyr and friends
LOL! That's a point well taken, and no doubt the reason for the policy shift. It's just terribly inconsistent. There are, I'm sure, more exceptions than there are standards.
I still can't see how "halfling-crafted" would be any more acceptable than "halfling" since they say the same thing, i.e., "here's a bow with features that identify it as being crafted by/for halflings". Now we may argue that such features should be described rather than alluded to, and that's fine. As it stands, one is accepted and one is not. I suppose for our part, we should steer away from such usage altogether. But sometimes it not only makes sense, it's the most effective, succinct way to convey our meaning.
It seems like the longer the game goes, the greater the propensity towards excessive verbosity. Our descriptions get longer and more detailed, the words we use become more obscure, and our style altogether more verbose. Looking at some people's descriptions is like reading Shakespeare. And I'm sorry to say, for some it's a form of literary snobbery. We've all met them. These are the folks with every last detail of their character altered in the most flowery, unapproachable prose possible. They've forgotten the most essential goal of writing is to communicate your message effectively. If half your readers can't wade through your description without a dictionary and half an hour to spare, well...something has gone seriously awry.
That's why I don't mind the occasional racial reference. While it's true I may not know exactly what a "halfling" styled bow looks like, I accept that my character does, in exactly the same way most of us could tell a Roman helmet from a Japanese helmet. A single word calls the image to mind, saving us time and screen real-estate. If we want to describe precisely what makes such an item distinctive, that's what "show" descriptions are for.
Naturally, this is only one opinion. It's really a matter of taste and style. There's not a "right" or "wrong" way about it, except for purposes of maintaining a consistent style and atmosphere within the game world. After all, what we are essentially doing is "reading" a game. And just like reading a novel, we don't want to be continually interrupted with sudden, jarring changes of style. That's why we have QC.
Sometimes, however, QC is simply wrong. ;)
~ Heathyr and friends
>I don't understand why we should have halfling, elven, dwarven anything. I mean, over the past few years they have given certain items in cultures their own names, for instance with Erithian culture they named the clothing and weapons with specific names. I think they should just do the same with all racially specific items.
SED17
No.
Absolutely not.
JUST NO.
/erithianaznrage
-farmer
SED17
No.
Absolutely not.
JUST NO.
/erithianaznrage
-farmer
>That's why I don't mind the occasional racial reference. While it's true I may not know exactly what a "halfling" styled bow looks like, I accept that my character does, in exactly the same way most of us could tell a Roman helmet from a Japanese helmet. A single word calls the image to mind, saving us time and screen real-estate. If we want to describe precisely what makes such an item distinctive, that's what "show" descriptions are for.
HEATHERHAZE
The problem is that racial terms in GS also reference size. A Roman helmet would fit the same person that could wear a Japanese helmet could wear a Viking helmet could wear a NFL football helmet.
This isn't the case in GS.
We have different races with noticeable different heights, weights, body types. A "tiny recurve halfling longbow" would make zero sense for a giantman to use (and especially not work as an actual longbow). Some ' gear-adorned gnomish fullplate" would look as equally silly on an elf.
>>I still can't see how "halfling-crafted" would be any more acceptable than "halfling" since they say the same thing, i.e., "here's a bow with features that identify it as being crafted by/for halflings".
"By /= "for".
A halfling should be able to make a bow for any other race (halfling-crafted). This is not the same as making a bow for a halfling (halfling longbow). This is mainly due to implied size dimensions. "Race-crafted" is slightly more agreeable since it doesn't actually imply that it is for that specific race. Rather that it was simply made by someone of that race and could be for anyone.
-farmer
HEATHERHAZE
The problem is that racial terms in GS also reference size. A Roman helmet would fit the same person that could wear a Japanese helmet could wear a Viking helmet could wear a NFL football helmet.
This isn't the case in GS.
We have different races with noticeable different heights, weights, body types. A "tiny recurve halfling longbow" would make zero sense for a giantman to use (and especially not work as an actual longbow). Some ' gear-adorned gnomish fullplate" would look as equally silly on an elf.
>>I still can't see how "halfling-crafted" would be any more acceptable than "halfling" since they say the same thing, i.e., "here's a bow with features that identify it as being crafted by/for halflings".
"By /= "for".
A halfling should be able to make a bow for any other race (halfling-crafted). This is not the same as making a bow for a halfling (halfling longbow). This is mainly due to implied size dimensions. "Race-crafted" is slightly more agreeable since it doesn't actually imply that it is for that specific race. Rather that it was simply made by someone of that race and could be for anyone.
-farmer
<<<A halfling should be able to make a bow for any other race (halfling-crafted). This is not the same as making a bow for a halfling (halfling longbow). This is mainly due to implied size dimensions. "Race-crafted" is slightly more agreeable since it doesn't actually imply that it is for that specific race. Rather that it was simply made by someone of that race and could be for anyone.>>>
I definitely see your point.
This is somewhat of an artificial limitation, however, since weapons don't mechanically exist in different sizes for game purposes. It's strictly a matter of RP. There should be size differences that are visible and real, but there aren't. So it's up to the players to determine what makes sense and what doesn't.
There's no logical reason a "tiny recurve halfling longbow" couldn't exist. We know that if a giantman used one, it would look ridiculous and should function as a shortbow. But we have no in-game mechanic for that. In your example, you double up on showing the bow to be created for a halfling by using the "tiny" adjective. I see nothing wrong with that. The fact that the bow can still be used as a longbow by taller races is strictly a mechanical limitation, i.e. artificial. There's nothing logically wrong with "a tiny recurve halfling longbow."
I see no reason we must necessarily homogenize every item in the game. Most players don't want their giantmen wielding tiny recurve halfling longbows and wearing gear-adorned gnomish full plate. Those who do should be appropriately tarred, feathered, and subjected to a lengthy recitation of Vogon poetry. As for the rest of us, I think we can be trusted to use our elven bows and dwarven axes responsibly.
~ Heathyr and friends
I definitely see your point.
This is somewhat of an artificial limitation, however, since weapons don't mechanically exist in different sizes for game purposes. It's strictly a matter of RP. There should be size differences that are visible and real, but there aren't. So it's up to the players to determine what makes sense and what doesn't.
There's no logical reason a "tiny recurve halfling longbow" couldn't exist. We know that if a giantman used one, it would look ridiculous and should function as a shortbow. But we have no in-game mechanic for that. In your example, you double up on showing the bow to be created for a halfling by using the "tiny" adjective. I see nothing wrong with that. The fact that the bow can still be used as a longbow by taller races is strictly a mechanical limitation, i.e. artificial. There's nothing logically wrong with "a tiny recurve halfling longbow."
I see no reason we must necessarily homogenize every item in the game. Most players don't want their giantmen wielding tiny recurve halfling longbows and wearing gear-adorned gnomish full plate. Those who do should be appropriately tarred, feathered, and subjected to a lengthy recitation of Vogon poetry. As for the rest of us, I think we can be trusted to use our elven bows and dwarven axes responsibly.
~ Heathyr and friends
<<It seems like the longer the game goes, the greater the propensity towards excessive verbosity. Our descriptions get longer and more detailed, the words we use become more obscure, and our style altogether more verbose. Looking at some people's descriptions is like reading Shakespeare. And I'm sorry to say, for some it's a form of literary snobbery. We've all met them. These are the folks with every last detail of their character altered in the most flowery, unapproachable prose possible. They've forgotten the most essential goal of writing is to communicate your message effectively. If half your readers can't wade through your description without a dictionary and half an hour to spare, well...something has gone seriously awry. >>
No bloody kidding. If I have to see one more set of virulescent cinerous limpid orbs ...
Sorry. You didn't suddenly become Moah Kewl because you've conned a merchant into giving you a set of adjectives for your sword that are something, ANYTHING other than "shining golden," the more unsuspecting viewers need to go into the dusty corners of the OED the better.
No bloody kidding. If I have to see one more set of virulescent cinerous limpid orbs ...
Sorry. You didn't suddenly become Moah Kewl because you've conned a merchant into giving you a set of adjectives for your sword that are something, ANYTHING other than "shining golden," the more unsuspecting viewers need to go into the dusty corners of the OED the better.
My alterations are primarily for my benefit. I will occasionally show an item to someone else or use an item as a prop or otherwise interact with it from time to time. But mostly they matter only to me. I prefer long descriptions in SHOW rather than visible from my inventory. I'm able to do more with them and, assuming I can convince the GM performing the job to see things my way, I can use whimsical wording that might be a little beyond the ordinary!
Here's my personal favorite from last EG:
It's just "a weathered lilac backpack" with scripts from that merchant Joola? I think here name was? Anyway, it'll appear as "a weathered lilac backpack with a <gem> buckle clasp." Right now it's "a weathered lilac backpack with a gold-dotted vibrant violet geode buckle clasp." But don't blame me for that description! The gem and the script are all Simu's fault! ;)
My contribution was the SHOW description:
Faded and worn by use, the lilac backpack is constructed of rugged leather stitched together with vibrant violet thread. The clasp of silver is scarred and abraded, layered in grit, its surface tarnished and faded. A gold-dotted vibrant violet geode is set into the clasp, its sheen diminished in part by the thinnest layer of grime. In places the leather is cracked and the stitches are frayed, but form and function endure. It appears that a firm pull would unseat the geode.
I thought for sure the merchant who did the alteration was going to turn it down (I've just never had much luck with getting exactly what I ask for in these things!), but she was actually impressed. She told me "THAT'S how you do an alteration!" I mean I thought it was great, but I didn't think a GM would go for it and I wasn't expecting anyone else would think it was anything special. But to me, it reads like poetry. It reminds me of Tav. Sort of...odd, and beat up. And purple! But in a good way!
I'm not sure if the point about verbosity would include my show description here but it strikes me that, while it may not be so great to pile the rhyme and alliteration on to absolutely everything, it'd be kind of boring if everything were so straight-laced all the time!
~Taverkin
Here's my personal favorite from last EG:
It's just "a weathered lilac backpack" with scripts from that merchant Joola? I think here name was? Anyway, it'll appear as "a weathered lilac backpack with a <gem> buckle clasp." Right now it's "a weathered lilac backpack with a gold-dotted vibrant violet geode buckle clasp." But don't blame me for that description! The gem and the script are all Simu's fault! ;)
My contribution was the SHOW description:
Faded and worn by use, the lilac backpack is constructed of rugged leather stitched together with vibrant violet thread. The clasp of silver is scarred and abraded, layered in grit, its surface tarnished and faded. A gold-dotted vibrant violet geode is set into the clasp, its sheen diminished in part by the thinnest layer of grime. In places the leather is cracked and the stitches are frayed, but form and function endure. It appears that a firm pull would unseat the geode.
I thought for sure the merchant who did the alteration was going to turn it down (I've just never had much luck with getting exactly what I ask for in these things!), but she was actually impressed. She told me "THAT'S how you do an alteration!" I mean I thought it was great, but I didn't think a GM would go for it and I wasn't expecting anyone else would think it was anything special. But to me, it reads like poetry. It reminds me of Tav. Sort of...odd, and beat up. And purple! But in a good way!
I'm not sure if the point about verbosity would include my show description here but it strikes me that, while it may not be so great to pile the rhyme and alliteration on to absolutely everything, it'd be kind of boring if everything were so straight-laced all the time!
~Taverkin
