<< RQ was not designed for Glorantha, but Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin (the inventor of the system) used it for it. And Avalon Hill abstracted it away from Glorantha. RQ2 had 95% chance of spirit spell success, RQ3 had POWx5. Which to you represents literal gloranthan fact? Do Gloranthans call Jump a Manipulation skill, or an Agility skill? I guess by your rules it must be a Manipulation skill, 'cos RQ2 (and thus Glorantha) has no Agility category. >>
I know that RQ was not designed originaly for Glorantha. But it must have beenadapted to it, and be fair representation of Glorantha. At least it seemed to be 15 years ago when I buyed that RQ2 box. No game ca represent completely the game word, it's only an aproximation. IMO what happened was that in ten years after the creation of RQ, specially after the deal with AH, Glorantha and RQ started to evolve in different directions. Nothing against it. But 15 years ago RQ should be a fair representation of Glorantha.
The concepts I used existed already at that time, and there was no disclaimer saying that they were just a rude and distant aproximation to Glorantha. If we follow your line of reasoning, we cannot play Glorantha RPGs, since no RPG can represent gloranthan literal fact. No, not even Hero Wars will be able to do it. I think it would be dishonest from a designers POV to say, "hey buy this game that represents this fictional reality", and when someone bases his views of the fictional reality in that game to tell him "don't you know that the game does not represent the gameword?".
The Glorantha/RQ history is instructive. Now we are going to have HW, but can we be sure that it will possible to say within 15 years that HW represents literal gloranthan fact? Are we sure that Robin Laws will still be designing HW developments, or will chose another path, like Steve Perrin?
Me:
>> calling sorcerors materialists is a very naive statment.
Nick Brooke:
>Gee, you're so right! I'll burn all Stafford's recent work on sorcery and
>belief systems as soon as I can lay my hands on it. How... how *naive*
>of him!
I know it looks so blaze' to be able to say "look at me, one of the inner
cyrcle of Greg's relations. I can even read his notebooks and identify his
footprints!"
I'm not one of those. And I was not discussing Stafford's recent work but
what some people were saying in the GD.
Since I didn't lay my hands on Stafford's recent work on sorcery, I'm sure you'll be kind enough, Nick, to inform me on where is and how can I find that work. No, I will not burn it, be assured.
I will be sincerely obliged to you if you post that information.
Sergio
Powered by hypermail