>playtest an early version of the rules.
>
>What I would like to see is more actual GAMING guidance. Most newbies
>are extremely confused about the difference between an Affinity, a
>Feat (about -3 AFAIK) and a Secret and when is it suitable to use an
>ability to get augmentation orcreate some wholly new effect (such as
>flight or healing).
>
>If one is quite happy to wing it then generally you can muddle
>through in the end but this is not the case for many gamers. Greg can
>say 'f**k the numbers' but in the end, the GAME stands on those
>numbers, as you point out in the case above.
>
>Steve
Now Greg's words are being distorted beyond all recognition by Chinese
Whispers. He said in response to a specific question (which may or may not
have been well-phrased) that Gloranthans don't know the numbers. He also
said (in his position piece) that an earlier HW draft which had NO numbers
(as he'd wanted) was rejected because it made a poor game.
Personally, I think the core HW rules work fine, but a few desirable
(bordering on essential in some cases) improvements would be:
- suggested feat examples
- slightly longer keyword descriptions (to be in Thunder Rebels - which I
wished was published first)
- better secret mechanics
- better mysticism mechanics
- better augmentation table/penalties (several fixes suggested on this list
work fine)
So far I'm finding the game playable with newbies and more flexible than
RQ. (Much to my surprise, archery hasn't been a problem).
Thom