>LC:
> ...I don't find the rules-mechanics
> distinctions particularly useful in illustrating anything important,
> they are superfluous to HQ2 mechanics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly I am firmly on LC's side here, the fact that magic has a distinct feel, origin, or even power level could be entirely illustrated by textual description and guidelines as to how various peoples and cultures view and cast magic. The only necessary mechanics are a colourful description and a number, with more colourful or specific descriptions gaining relevant bonuses.
Sure the runic affinity rules are interesting and colourful, and the rules for identity challenges and feats are cool, they can just as easily be reduced to genre guidelines. I forsee the various magics of Glorantha eventually encompassing a large collection of rules, already foreshadowed in discussions of spirit magic and lunar magic.
Not only are the core rules capable of modelling everything, in many ways their solution is far more elegant and efficient.
Take for example the suggestion that for Theism "an affinity is something you are", for Spirit Magic "a spirit is something you have", and for Wizards "a spell is something you know".
Using this basic guideline you can quickly start modelling theist magic as traits (both personal and cultural), spirit magic as belongings or relationships, and wizardry as skills. And, as each of these are mechanically the same anyway nothing more is required. Sure we can draw philosophical and theological distinctions between the various outlooks and even draw up guidelines as to the realms and possible effects of the various magics, but mechanically we are sorted.
Jamie
Powered by hypermail