> > It is a best fit if you want to shoehorn square pegs into round holes on
> > the grounds that magic types described in HeroQuest are the only
> > types of magic permissible. But I don't believe that and neither should
> > you.
>The game rules aren't claimed to be an exact representation of Glorantha.
> But the point here is to play, not to get hung up on some purist vision of
>"how Glorantha is".
So you damn me as a purist of "how Glorantha is" because I didn't follow your own purity about following what is published at all costs?
> > >If you have a better suggestion - and that means a constructive idea
> > >about how to handle Magi under current HQ rules - then I suggest
> > >that you make it.
> > It was constructive for you to start quoting me sections of the
> > Glorantha: Intro in an effort to prove me wrong?
>I quoted it to expand on the information available.
In order words, your answer to my question was: No, you weren't being constructive.
>For instance pointing out that it did go against ILH-1 in
>some respects (e.g. it contradicts the idea of using the
>Malakinus Wizardry school in ILH-1).
But I already said that the ILH-1 was in error in that Viziers rather than Magi were supposed to be sorcery users. So why go to the extra length of a retentive nitpick?
> > It was as helpful as your original advice.
>My original advice was to use ILH-1. As that is official
>published material for HeroQuest it seems helpful enough.
And pointing out that the material was wrong is just as helpful in that it has been well-known that the Magi are not conventional wizards as Antonio was aware.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail