>And I don't like the muddiness. Glorantha is more muddy now than it
>was before. Hero Wars doesn't help this.
I deny this totally - as far as I can see, Glorantha has never been so well defined, and other than the target numbers, never more consistent.
>No, that's not the issue. I don't care about how many things a feat
>can do. I care about having those feats (and ANY OTHER game
>constructs) to be well defined. Well defined does not mean rigid.
But they are well defined - a feat does anything that is encompassed by its title! Benedict has already given the long list of context that is provided for every feat. I can't see how you would provide more definition without becoming more rigid.
>My comment about YGMV above means that I want to have the choice to
>change things, not be forced to change things by having to make them
>up (and yes, I consider having to decide what the Wind Above spirit
>is to be "making it up").
Something that has not been defined cannot be "changed". If we had a detailed definition of everything that every feat could do, we would not have the breadth we currently have. Perhaps Issaries could spend their time detailing the information you seem to want, but it would (a) detract from providing detail in other areas and (b) quite possibly end up at the same point anyway!
Deciding what a given spell, spirit, or feat can or can't do is part of roleplaying. Either the GM does it, or the rule book does. In the latter case, I find the games tend to be prone to rules lawyers, overly rigid, and I end up ignoring all the special cases anyway. YMMV
I also did not suggest at any point "deciding what the Wind Above spirit is". I specifically do NOT advise this approach. Instead the Wind Above spirit is a spirit with the power to perform actions associated with "Wind" and "Above". I don't see this as a difficult process, although I can see that the concept of the process might be difficult.
>The problem, which someone hit upon in an earlier message by
>accident, is that modern Glorantha appears to be more about
>storytelling (in the proper non-White Wolf sense) than about
>roleplaying. If Issaries wants Hero Wars to be more storytelling
>than roleplaying, that's fine. I'm not much for storytelling games,
>and Hero Wars said "roleplaying" on the tin (to steal someone else's
>phrase :).
??? Well what we do with the system is definatly what *I* call roleplaying. A large (but not exclusive) element of that envolves creating shared stories. Perhaps the problem is that your definition of roleplaying varies?
I'm beginning to think that we are talking past each other here. I can't see your problems, and you can't see my suggested solutions. Pretty soon I'm going to have to give up...
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail