To add a more positive note to all this.
I think the HW Glorantha line has been a success for me and many like me who run all their games on some spesific (or personal) system.
I run my games so that all the game mechanics are handled by the GM, including charactersheets. This let's my players concentrate on their gaming (the common storytelling system design goal), while letting them and me enjoy the benefits of a simulationistic system. (We just like the approach better.)
But I digress. What I'm trying to get accross is that the HW line has suited me rather perfectly. The rules are fairly lucid after one get's a handle on then, and they take very little space in the books.
Parhaps a good technical term would be that the HW mechanics are powerfully expressive. A few lines or a paragraph manages to give a good impression of a character or a magic (item).
In RQ-2 (and espesially RQ-3) there was a lot of badly done statistics. People who could write cool characters weren't necessary good at giving them believable statistics.
The same can still happen in HW, but since there's more expression in the naming of the abilities, it's easier to understand what the author was trying to emphasize and get across.
So personally I've been rather extatic over the wealth of material that has sprang into being for my beloved Glorantha over the recent years. HW has been presented in an unfortunately opaque fashion, but if HQ manages to clear and simplify this, I think we can be hopeful for the future.
HQ will cater to the crowd that want's to try out an innovative storytelling system, while being readable for those of us who like the more simulationistic approach.
Go Issaries!!
-Adept : feeling like a fanboy after writing this
Powered by hypermail