> It's not that I actually hate Overtkill, I mean Onslaught. It's
that I
>dislike the 'poetic license' that describes him crossing a room, getting
>three aimed blows to the head, and getting back out of reach before anyone
>can see him and react.
Sure, its not your cuppa tea. Personally I find more "vague" combat descriptions more enjoyable than the detailed ones. Onslaught often bores people into a coma at social functions by actually describing all the various blows and moves he makes in each of his fights (some of which last hours) in excruciating detail. As the writer, I prefer to leave that but out and let the reader determine what he did. You simply "saw" it differently to me, and thats fine. That is your view of things.
>I prefer games where the combat rules mean
>something, rather than being thrown out for some personal power fantasy.
Hmm, as a writer I am unconstrained by rules other than those of English and what I and the reader enjoys. As a GM, I am largely constrained not by the rules, which are always a framework in any game stystem to aid the GM and players. Instead I view the action to be important and most vital, is the _pace_ of the action. Under no circustances should rules get in the way of pace. The moment I actually start _thinking_ about rules, I begin to lose the moment. I think my players agree, but thats just us. Each to their own.
> IMG, he would have charged across the room, taken his first action
as a
>divided attack against two foes, and his second action as an attack
>against the third foe. All of the foes would have had a parry chance,
>which should have saved their lives, unless he had very large Damage
>magics and STR enhancements already cast to overcome their parries and
>armor. Also, three head hits are highly improbable since the blows
>couldn't have been aimed.
These points are valid within the RQ rules system. I was not writing for the RQ system, which is in itself an abstract of combat anyway, with the combat round representing many actions within the simple one or two action limit. As a writer of fiction I fail to see why I should be limited by this. Particularly as I'm working within the HW rules framework these days as a GM.
>It's not that he couldn't have incapacitated or even killed them with one
blow, it's just >a personal cry for story balance and limits for heroic
abilities.
Story balance? Would you have preferred a long drawn out fight? That would be completely missing the point of the story. Onslaught is there as a story component more as an elemental force rather than a serious attempt to see him in combat. His ability is overwhelming and thats all that needs to be said. Pointlessly reiterating his superiority over the Greydog carls would detract from the lesson the clan learnt.
As for limits to heroic ability, there are limits. Onslaught is himself totally two dimensional as a hero. He can kill, and fight and lead people to kill and fight (though he is not a great leader in the sense of a Napoleon) and thats about it. Argrath is far more versatile and hence unable to compete with specialists like Onslaught in combat but can kick there ass in other areas.
Thanks for the input though.
Martin Laurie
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #341
Powered by hypermail