> > The basic idea is that equipment is very seldom a story element.
>> Heroes don't prevail because they have cuirboilli rather than
>> leather armor.
>
>I appreciate the sentiment, but I also think that real life
>classical heroes (say bronze age Greece) tended to be the guys with
>excellent quality panoplies of full armour and great equipment. The
>wealthy, well armed and armoured nobility will have been the people
>who are seemingly invincible, and can cut down 30 people in a single
>battle.
Well, you could either let a noble augment combat with Noble or Wealthy -- or make sure they all have panoply as an ability. Although if I recall correctly, the panoply seldom actually saves anyone in Homer.
IIRC, Gunnar in Njal's Saga is one of several saga heroes who is able to fight with any weapon. He *does* have named weapons (i.e. equipment as an ability), but it's pretty obvious that Gunnar's ability is dominant. Mundane equipment never matters in Icelandic sagas.
>I like to have some of that reflected in my Glorantha as well... but
>then again I'm a fan of a very low tech glorantha were good
>equipment is rare and random guy in the fyrd / dara-happan infantry
>has a lick of paint on his shield, a leather helmet and a spear. :)
Well this is entirely compatible with what I originally wrote. Most Gloranthans will not have spent part of their character creation on equipment. A few will. Even fewer will put hero points into increasing it.
--
David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail