If you are saying that there often ARE multiple levels of mastery differences between people, but don't worry because you can often leap that level quickly, then I would say it 'aint a feature, its a bug. The idea that anybody can get lucky against a rune lord is long regarded as one of the best features of RQ - and it just don't happen no more with two levels of mastery.
Put it this way - In the Pendragon rules, Lancelot is around 1.5 levels of Mastery better than your beginning PC. But your village rune lord is at a minimum 2 levels of mastery better than a beginning PC? I hope not - - and I don't think that is intended.
The scale is an issue independent of the level of advancement. I do, however, applaud HW for saying that the level of advancement does not need to be held to an arbitrary standard.
>Why can't you assume that the rules will work?
I have reason to be suspicious on this issue. And because I care. And as Nick said, that does not seem to be the playtesters role.
Why Alex is discussing the question in this forum when he would have generated more light and less heat from asking Greg is a different question.
>Alex often equates priest=WWW. That is just flat out wrong and I hope
>he eventually stops.
Alex probably gets this from the '3 levels of Mastery needed to enter the hero-plane, and entering the hero-plane essential for important clan magic' idea. It may well be an incorrect interpretation of this comment to assume that therefore all clans have WWW priests - in fact, I certainly hope it is incorrect.
Doyle
>Profound differences in levels of power should be marked with levels of
>Mastery, while fine differences should be marked with better Target
>numbers.
Actually, I think the rules should evolve so that APs, edges, flaws, and all that play a much bigger part than they do now. This will happen as the flesh is laid on the bones with things like mass combat rules, weapons and armour rules, ritual magic rules, and so on
(Basic point of the rules - adding levels of mastery lets you take on more powerful opponents, but adding APs lets you take on more opponents, or take on opponents with more surety. Its a neat element of flexibility in the HW system that should be exploited far more).
>So either a level of Mastery is really 'a level of aptitude' or multiple
>levels >of Mastery imply Otherworldly, magical improvement of the skill
>beyond mundane, >non-magical capabilities.
Doyle apts for the latter, but I definately aim for the former, with the proviso that its not just skills you are talking about, so the phrase 'level of aptitude' doesn't always apply. A normal guy can be mundanely strong up to maybe 1 level of mastery (and might need magic to get stonger than that). But a dinosaur can be stronger than that, without implying anything non-mundane about. Perhaps there should be some sort of limit on *human* non-magical ability in certain skills (or perhaps Gloranthans naturally slip into the mythic realm with experience).
>Harrek is a deadly warrior, skilled in use of his weapons, and in the Dead
>Place,
>where no magic functions, he can be taken, just like professional wrestler
>can >be taken down by any five trained cops. But when Harrek is nearly
>anywhere else >in Glorantha, Harrek can easily mow through any five
>Loskalmi Knights.
I'd put my money on, say, Miyamoto Musashi, to take down 5 Loskalmi Knights, and I'd put Harrek in at least the same class. And according to the rules, if you have a couple of levels of Mastery over your opponents, you can take on 5 or 6 comfortably. With 1 level of Mastery, 5 or 6 starts getting uncomfortable.
Cheers David ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #629
Powered by hypermail