Yeah, I don't think arbitrary would be quite the right word here, since there's a clear system behind it. But that doesn't necessarily make it useful, depending on what it is you want out of a system.
>
> ...
> > Of course I'll be the one filling in the blanks, but I'm trying to
> > portray Glorantha for my players to the best of my understanding of
> > how She works.
>
> As if you are the director of a film, with your players as the
audience?
> I believe HQ2 aims for a more interactive style, and that HQ1 (despite
> appearances) was intended for that style too.
On the other hand, I don't think that this is the issue, either. A simulationist game can be just as interactive as a narrativist one; the two issues aren't really related, IMO.
> Quite simply, HQ might not
> be the game for you, and there is nothing wrong in that. Trying to bash
> an unsuitable game into the shape you want is probably not wise.
This is quite true. Although I'll note that (as I think somebody else said earlier) that it's quite possible that HQ1 *is* the game for you, but that HQ2 isn't. That's certainly the way I feel. Fortunately, nobody's going to be forced to change rulebooks :)
Further discussion on that front, though, I believe belongs on the HQ-rules list.
> IIRC, Greg has said that guardians/wyters are necessary for a community
> to combine its magic, rather than acting as a mob of individuals. That
> suggests that the strength of the magic of a guardian/wyter is roughly
> proportional to the number of people in its community.
This is what it says in HQ1 (regardless of what the actual numbers might be), and I don't see any reason to suppose that it's incorrect. It was certainly the approach I used when writing up the Guardian Essences for the cities in LotW2 and 3.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail