Well, if they do give descriptions that makes it almost as easy. You can go with the 'sample' descriptions or you can go with your own...whichever you prefer. They're just that, though...examples.
> > It will be perfectly consistent with the published Glorantha, since the
> > published Glorantha doesn't detail the feats anyway.
>
> No? So that Babeester Gor PC:s with strong darkenss powers won't
> contradict the published scenarios. We'll just see about that.
Hm? Sorry...I must be missing a reference...
> > Force what? Feat descriptions? It's a fairly minor task compared to
running a
> > campaign, and he can always leave it up to the player, subject to his
approval.
>
> This is something that has been forced on a friend of mine that runs a
> Kulthe (Shadow Wordl) campaign. The religions and gods therein have been
> left pretty much undescribed. The workload is quite enormous, now that
> he is trying to bring them up to gameable detail. And in Glorantha,
> where religion and myth are at the center stage, the workload is huge. I
> don't think too many GM:s want to just make them up as they go along,
> with no tought to the internal workings of the world in question. And to
> get that consistensy with the rest of Glorantha, one has to do a
> !#%&load of research into the old material, and read between the lines
> of the new.
> Not good...
Actually, I never had a problem bringing the Kulthean deities to "gameable detail". Certainly it didn't require an enormous workload. In any case, you don't have to develop the Gloranthan deities and cults...that's already done in exhaustive detail. You just have to describe a few feats or allow your players to do so. That's much easier.
I don't see that describing feats will take much Gloranthan research at all. Certainly, you can if you want to. I'm sure I won't.
> > How can the supplement contradict his choices, if the supplement doesn't
detail
> > the feats? You keep stating this...have I missed something? Has someone
said
> > future supplements -will- detail feats? I was under the impression that the
> > feats were never going to be detailed, and that this was the cause of the
> > controversy...to me it seems like it makes the controversy moot.
>
> They will detail the feats in the sense that they will have characters
> doing things with the feats, and these things may well differ
> compleately from the explanations and definitions a given GM has chosen.
But those are just examples. If you want to worry about keeping your campaign in line with examples, then I guess you can change your feat descriptions as you come across the examples. I don't see it as a big deal. If they differ, and I like their interpretation better, then I might discuss it with the player. If I like my existing definition better, then I won't. It's especially easy if it involves a feat that hasn't come up yet...of course, I'll still decide if I like their 'example' or if I think I can do better.
In running a Hero Wars campaign, I would expect such things to be a very minor detail.
Tom B.
Powered by hypermail