>I'm going to disagree. Take (I forget whose) the recent example
>involving Shield Destroyer. Player wants to destroy his opponent's
>shield, not as the goal of the extended contest but as an
>intermediate goal to achieve beating the snot out of the mouthy
>Lunar. Based on everything that I've seen, this is supposed to be
>just another AP bid. I don't find a good tie between trying to
>destroy the shield, winning the contest and level of risk by the
>player. I would think that it would be an related action, but all
>examples seem to point at a normal action. How does the AP bid tie
>into this? Why shouldn't the player just bid 3 AP?
Nothing I've seen suggests that destroying someone's shield should be an AP bid. I'd roll it as an unrelated action. Healing during combat has been used as an example before, and provides much the same indirect advantage. Your instincts here seem to be right, to me anyway.
> > HQ AFAIK will have advice for handling this.
> >
> > In a nutshell, attempting to decapitate a foe requires an
> > appropriate AP bid.
>
>I assume there's going to be more help in determining what's
>appropriate?
If you go this route, then the AP bid must be sufficient to take the opponent to "Complete Defeat" aka "Dying". Personally I'd allow a less extreme route - "You hack at his neck for the third time, finally decapitating him."
> > Heler mythology and Aroka mythology are both insanely complicated.
> >
> > Fact is, no you're not really supposed to know that.
>
>You do realize that I have issue with being told that, as the
>narrator, I'm not supposed to know things about the setting?
Read as "You are not REQUIRED to know this".
>As I indicated elsewhere, I'm not in this for the recreational
>mythology and storytelling. That's where I'm at odds with things.
Roleplaying in a mythic world involves mythology and storytelling. I'm still not sure what you mean by "roleplaying" and "storytelling" that makes you believe they are so different. Example?
>I like conventional systems.
Perhaps you should use one then? HW is what it is and appears to me to support the games you are trying to run. I'm not sure what the problem is, but perhaps if it is simply a matter of taste you should try a different system?
> > This logically precludes the kind of hardness or crunchiness
> > that you appear to be asking for.
>
>I'm not asking for hardness or crunchiness in the rules. I'm looking
>for better definition in the implementation of the setting in the
>rules. I'm not asking for "Feat X does <insert game mechanics>".
>I'm looking for enough information to determine what is reasonable
>for Feat X.
Feat X is defined by :
The name of Feat X
Feats A,B,C,D,E,F which are in the same affinity.
Affinity N which contains the feat
An often long description of the God or sub-cult providing the feat.
This seems a lot of information to me. Certainly more than the paragraph or so that most games give you.
> > If most people wanted what you're asking for, well,
> > we'd probably have Glorantha D20 being released soon
> > instead of HQ.
>
>Yeah, once Greg was cured of his paranoia that D20 == loss of control.
I think Greg's belief is more that D20 == huge step backwards. Remember, the first Gloranthan roleplaying stats were done for something that looked remarkably like D&D.
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail