Re: Thunderstone

From: RoySubs_at_...
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:22:23 -0000


?:
>>>>> 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!

Tim Ellis:
> I'm not convinced that no description (actually minimal, since the
> name of the feat and the affinity to which it belongs is "some
> description") is worse than having an incorrect and incomplete
> description - especially if you treat that incorrect and incomplete
> description as being exhaustive and infallible...

I don't think anyone on this list has suggested treating descriptions as ever being exhaustive and infallible... except *you*, right? Newbie Narrator to HW wants *some* description. Once he and his players get more confident, they start to improvise and develop their own ideas and that's great. People (ie David Dunhams has always been a great site) have their own ideas and set up their own house rules and ideas etc. Everyone gets the Glorantha they want in time. There is *no* argument along the lines of "But you can't do that because the rules say different!" because everyone knows that the HW rules are not as rigid as RQ and have much more improvisational freedom. If yer gonna define a broo in general terms (and hey, broos come in all shapes and forms right?) or Solar Flying as being generally vertical in nature on p.64 (although a Narrator may allow a Solar flyer working in conjunction with a Lokarnos devotee to achieve horizontal flight as Lokarnos is a god of movement and I am fine with that), you can define a Sunset Leap or a Snarl Darkness in general terms also and it doesn't ever make the rules a rigid stalemate. Instead it gives more scope in interesting ideas and aids people in coming up with interesting improvisational ideas. Why is that wrong!!!?

Powered by hypermail