Re: Re: Thunderstone

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:42:30 +0300 (EET DST)


On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Mikael Raaterova wrote:

> Mikko:
>
> >Mikael Raaterova:
> >> Why? A thunderstone carries the power of thunder. Why wouldn't you be
> >> able to use it to summon thunder?
> >
> >Silly because the whole point of the argument is that we just don't know
> >what in general a Thunderstone is.
>
> In general we *do* know what a Thunderstone is. It is a Stone with
> the power of Thunder. You're worrying about details.

Although it wasn't me that was quouted here, I'll add something here. Yes, I do worry about the details. The details are what I love about Glorantha. The depth and detail of the cultures and religions. I don't want it all to degenerate to "whatever feels cool at the moment and amuses your gamers goes".
  I want details. I want Glorantha to feel real. I want my gamers to feel the hot sand in their sandals and worry about their bronze sword getting dull. I don't want Xena vs. Batmat cinematics in gloriously vague dreamcolor.  

> >It *could* be used to augment a summon storm, but should it?
>
> I really don't think this should be determined at all. If *you* feel
> it shouldn't, disallow it or levy a penalty.

But is the current view then that we should cast away all cohesion and similarity between our views about Glorantha? What good will the published stuff be then? Are we all just left to our own devices. The cults for instance get only the bare outline, with feats named with whatever amused the writer at the moment "the names mean nothing anyway, they'll just have to make it up themselves"

If this is the case we'd be better off with just getting information on the lines of "Orlanth is the greatest of the gods of storm, and his worshippers see him as the ruler of the cosmos"

Then we just make up our own views on his magic. I don't see that the current trend is giving us much more than that. The details we have are all from the RQ stuff.

> The RQ version of Thunderstone was a stone imbued with the power of
> Thunder, usable only for lobbing it at your enemies. The HW version
> is that you imbue a stone with the power of Thunder, usable for
> whatever is appropriate, which includes, but is not limited to,
> lobbing it at your foes.

And this makes for a more believable and deep Glorantha to you?

> >Does Enhance Gustbran actually enhance the god Gustbran? no. So should a
> >Thunderstone summon Thunder or do what was described roughly in RQ3 (without
> >the RQ3 mechanics)? There is NO answer given to say one way or the other...
>
> Why do you feel this acute need to have everything determined and
> described? It boggles me.

It's the details that make the world. Othervice we are just playing make believe, and we dont need any rules or backround for that. The details make Glorantha come alive.  

> Remember, just because something was determined in RQ doesn't mean
> that that description was actually correct or exhaustive.

It's way better than not having any!

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail