Spell Targeting; Gloranthan conformity

From: Simon D. Hibbs <simon_at_fcrd.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 17:15:57 +0000 (GMT)


Saravan Peacock
>My problem with battle magic spells is: how are the offensive ones aimed?
>Presumably it's a point and shoot type thing, but how do you ensure your
>disruption hits the broo fifty metres away rather than the Storm Bull
>maniac who is frenziedly trying to chop it to bits? It seems there should
be
>some sort of Aim skill too. But that repels me enormously so I just
>blissfully close open my eyes wide and say, "well of _course_ it hits the
>broo...". Any plausible suggestions on the nature of spells which would
>explain this remarkable (and probably universal) phenomenon?

You are assuming that spell have a physical existance akin to that of an object, and actualy fly through the air to strike their target. IMHO this is not the case. My own interpretation is that the caster's spirit casts the spell at the target's spirit, this being an instinctive ability that actualy occurs via the spirit plane. To put it another way, you don't have to make an observation roll to distinguish two people in plain sight. A physical missile is targeted at the target's body, while a spell is targeted at their 'being'.

Graham Wren (Conformity versus free-form Glorantha) :

>I've always felt that Glorantha was built upon flexibility, but this is
>being lost. I feel that the Gloranthan "novels" are being treated as
>doctrine, rather than ways of fleshing out the mythologies of Glorantha.
>........ I am not a Gloranthan sage, so I
>don't feel that detailed analysis of mythology benefits Runequest or
>Gloranthan RPG's, other than giving an average PC a new reason to burn a
>library.
> ............. Trolls in my campaign might suck on a rock,
>trolls can digest rocks to be useful in setting the mood, creating
>mystery for the PC's, etc. Trolls in my campaign might suck on a rock,
>or crunch one to show off, but there is no vitamins or calories in
>rocks!
>So I would like to see less "No that's wrong" and more "We do this..."

That is a fair point, but it is also true that Glorantha is the creation of Greg Stafford and existed long before the games that are set there. By and large this mailing list is set up to discuss Greg's Glorantha. That does not mean you can't tell us all about you own game campaign's version of Glorantha, but I'm affraid you'll have to accept that where your differs
irreconcilably with Greg's version it will remain just a potentialy interesting variant.

The fact is that in Greg's Glorantha the Elves ARE plants, and Trolls CAN derive usefull sustenance from bare rock and minerals. These are not just arbitrary fancies, they are facts rooted deeply in the nature of Gloranthan myth and magic. Elves are plants because they were created by the plant goddess long before there were any animals on the surface of Glorantha, Trolls can live of the bare elements because they are magical creatures and can usefully extract the magical life-giving energy that exists in all Gloranthan matter. Heck, in Glorantha even humans are magical
creatures - you aren't in Kansas any more.

If you can create a world that is better developed, has greater mythological depth and is more compelling than the orriginal Greg Stafford Glorantha I'd love to see it. I'm not rubbishing you, at the end of the day
we all do the same - we create our own interpretation of Glorantha in our games. My own campaign has already diverged slightly from the 'official' and concensus views of Glorantha and I'll probably go further, but if I'm going to be able to communicate with other GMs then we need to have a 'standard refference' Glorantha to work from and that belongs in Greg's capable hands.

Powered by hypermail