and probably for an encore goes on to prove that I want Patrick Buchanan as the leader of the British Labor Party. Or some such.
> Oh. (Scratches head). Never mind.
>
My thoughts exactly.
What I do think is that if Standfast is to be treated in the same way as other spells, with its restrictions removed, then it is an interesting minor combat magic. And could be used by any military unit that finds it interesting, but Hoplites are the most likely to bother with it.
> Can I recommend the tactics section of "Runemasters" as an example of what
> pissing around with literally-defined magic does to Glorantha?
>
While I agree that the Runemasters section is indeed a good example of the wrong way to do it, may I recommend Sandy's folk magic as an excellent example of how literally defined magic and a little creativity can add fun and colour to your game.
Now that standfast exists, can't you think of clever uses for it? And can't you see that PC Hoplites might occasionally want to use it in ways that are not within the spell description, but nonetheless heroic and fun?
And a word in brief defense of Runemasters - some of those suggestions where obviously based on rules flaws, and have been coped with by sensibly changing the rules (adding Damage bonus to Fireblade removed one abuse of the spell, for example), but others are quite reasonable -eg casting Fanaticism on your enemy may not have been what the spell was designed for, and they made it sound like it was them discovering a rules loophole. But it sounds a legitimate tactic in both rules and roleplaying terms to me, to magically enrage your enemy so that he might make a mistake.
> > I feel that it is not unknown for those with insufficient dedication to
> > the Bull (but who nevertheless have some connection to the cult), to find
> > that the Gift of the Bulls Rage is bestowed on them.
>
> The rules don't require *any* connection to the cult, do they? Another reason to
> ignore them, and seek common sense elsewhere...
>
Well, no. Which doesn't particularly bother me, as long as my players don't do anything silly. If my Storm Bull is wildly incapacitated, and sees his chaos fighting companion (with no Storm Bull connection) about to be overwhelmed and demoralised, he just might cast it on them. Its a divine miracle, after all, not merely a result of special Storm Bull training.
I would like to see a way between these two paths, and I am actively trying to find one. But I still think magic is magic, and can do things that it shouldn't if considered merely psychology. And I still think that leaving a little room for creativity in magic is worth any potential for rules abuse.
Peter replies to me
> >> Because a) Gloranthans make no distinction between extreme pyschological
> >> states and magicially induced ones.
>
[I said that it was debatable, and Peter weighs in to the debate a little
late]
>
> Oh? So the Gloranthans have pyschology 100%? Are Ulerian Courtesans
> faking it when they cast Erotocosmatose Lucidity? Are Uroxi Beserkers
> calm and rational when they charge Chaos? The relevance of this is
> to what the Standfast spell represents.
>
Do I have to spell out ever little point? I think Gloranthans realise that some strong emotional states can be the result of magic. I think they realise some are not. Strong emotional states are something that magic can do to you. Disruption can cripple your leg. This does not mean Gloranthans make no distinction between magic and having a crippled leg. Berserk causes you to become crazed with rage (among other things), this does not mean that being crazed with rage is always magical. On the contrary, I think there is a big difference between being Berserk and being crazed with rage. Rather than crassly point out that one gives you Countermagic 2, I will say only that one is a divine rage that enables things a mortal rage cannot.
And for me, Glorantha would be a lesser place if they could not tell the difference between their own strong emotions and the touch of the divine.
<sigh>
I'm sick of making this point again and again. Its insoluble. Some people don't seem to want magic to be able to do things to your psyche that have no psychological explanation, and then say 'magic is the same as psychology in Glorantha'.
Why is beyond me. Everyone accepts that magic does things that have no other physical explanation. So why shouldn't magic be capable of inexplicable psychology? I very strongly believe it should. So there.
> >I don't see 'having more armour points' or 'being more difficult to
> >knockback' as being particularly psychological in nature.
>
> No, but the Standfast spell represents the hoplite being imbued by the
> Spirit of the *Phalanx* rather than the hoplite enhancing his combat
> capabilities. Since one cannot form a phalanx by himself, it follows
> that the hoplite cannot call upon the Granite Phalanx spirit for the
> blessing if he is *not* in formation.
>
If you assume your first sentence, then your second does indeed follow. I see no reason to assume the first sentence. I don't think anyone intended it to be interpreted quite as you imply, and if that was what I was trying to say, I would have stated it clearly and used very different game mechanics.
(the term Spirit of the Phalanx, emphasised as you have, to me implies that you think of Standfast as something other that a spirit magic spells cast by an individual hoplite on another, but rather something that is done by some sort of communal spirit)
In other words, I disagree. Furthermore, you have still not addressed the point - being hard to knockback is a physical change rather than a mental. Being harder to damage (for which you have a better case on the spirit of the phalanx bit) is definately a physical effect not a mental.
But enough of such quibbling. Peters main point was that the restricted spell encourages them to form a Phalamx, and thus behave in a more Hoplite fashion. I agree. And he made his point well. But I do not think spells are the most appropriate way to do this, and I find it more fun if the way magic works is not custom designed for military effectiveness (though the combat system, a pure rules construct, should be designed so that historically effective tactics are effective, as much as we are able). Its more fun if the players are encouraged to think about the options, and even more fun if they surprise you and think of options you hadn't thought of.
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail