<< The rules paradigm is irrelevant; it ought not to happen or it
destroys
>the atmosphere of the setting, regardless of what rules you happen to be
>using.
I think this is irresolvable for us: our ideas about atmosphere are, I think, too divergent.>>
You may be taking my quote out of context (doubtless my fault for not expressing myself well enough) - the 'it' I'm referring to is the idea that a small but significant proportion of the total population (e.g. 2%) is powerful enough to be invulnerable in a contest with the bulk of the remainder. That some individuals are so powerful is not a problem for me, but my reckoning puts that figure at well below 1-in-1000 rather than the much higher proportion you appeared to be suggesting.
<< My argument is that the RQ rules have, in large part, given you the atmosphere that you speak of when you think of Gloranthan reality, not the other way around. >>
I'd say that my conceptions of Gloranthan reality have been shaped by my reading of the non-rules material (indeed, I don't use the RQ rules) and interpretation of 'what would be fun'. If something would not be fun, it doesn't really matter what rules system is used to simulate it.
<< The impression one gains from play of RQ different than that you get from reading fiction or myth about Glorantha.>>
Not really; the primary fiction that I think about with respect to Glorantha are Oliver Dickinson's Griselda stories. And the impression from them is *not* substantively different to that from RQ play. Now, if you point out that they were based very much on the RQ rules, I'd have to agree, but regardless of their ultimate origin, they are the primary fictional guide available to me as to what its neat for Gloranthan PCs do, as opposed to the myths, which are something different. Besides, IMO, that sort of fiction is a lot more fun than stuff about people flinging loads of hero-powers at each other.
<<Greg's recent fiction, anyway.>>
Not having read any of it, I couldn't comment on its overall enjoyability or otherwise. The snippets I've heard at cons may not be representative of the whole.
<< Is either perspective more valid the other? I can't make that objective statement,>>
Neither can I, but I'm far more concerned with enjoyability than validity. Which, of course, would have to be an entirely subjective decision :-)
<<but I, personally, value my interpretation of the fiction over my past RQ/Gloranthan role playing sessions. YMMV.>>
Perhaps because I haven't yet read Greg's fiction, I don't yet see a problem with regard to the relative interpretations. But my focus is on what is desirable and interesting for a game session, not necessarily on what one set of rules says compared with another. The question is, would I as a player *want* to play a WWW character - the answer, judging from the incomplete information I have so far (and thus subject to revision in the future) is a resounding 'no'. That answer then colours how I'd set things up in my more usual role as GM. NPCs of that level would of course exist, but they'd definately be in the background if the campaign is to remain interesting.
Eric has previously stated that the upcoming source material is aimed both at those who prefer my style of play and those who prefer more powerful characters and that both sorts of campaign will be equally well supported. So long as that's true, I'm happy. I repeat, I think its great that HW *can* do the high-level stuff even if I personally don't wish to use it for that.
Alex:
<< wouldn't it be a bit of a waste to design a nifty, scalable RPG, and then
not bother using more than the first rung of the scale? ;-)>>
It obviously would for the designers, yes. But even leaving aside the fact that the higher rungs *would* be being used (if only for NPCs) that doesn't mean I should be forced to use them if I don't find them interesting :-)
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail