A dissatistied customer....

From: Michael Cule <mikec_at_room3b.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:25:12 +0100


Robert Vesterman is not in a good mood:
>I've just begun reading the players' book for Hero Wars. My first
>impression, frankly, is one of ridiculous vagueness and disorganization.
>
>I understand that abilities and such are purposely vague, but it seems like
>the rules themselves are vague, too. And it's incredibly disorganized -
>seems like all over, there are terms which are used, then defined ten pages
>later (if they're defined at all).

If you have the Deluxe box you'll find a very useful list of definitions (and it's a LOOOOOONG list) in the handouts.

>
>Anyway, I have some specific questions:
>
>What happened to Urox? Elmal? Eurmal?
>

All have been put off till THUNDER BROTHERS to be fully defined. Urox there is some debate about whether he and Storm Bull are the same entity and which one is being given Misapplied Worship.

>Why are seven major aspects of Ernalda listed, but only three are described?
>Not that I have any great desire to play a Uraldan, but come on, I have an
>equal level of desire to play a Uraldan as I do an "Ernalda the Mother"
>worshipper. A couple aspects of Orlanth are missing, too (Farmer and
>Lawspeaker).

Considerations of space again.

>
>Wealth/Pricing/Buying Stuff - What? Why on earth was this done? I would have
>to see this in action, I guess, but it seems to be a purposeless
>complification of the standard, easily understandable, and
>not-difficult-to-keep-track-of "I have x pennies, this thing costs y
>pennies" system. What advantage does this system have, besides being in
>line with the omnipresent theme of vagueness? I just don't get this whole
>section.

Well, I think the idea was to get rid of the necessity to keep track of every penny. Some people feel that this is too much like being an accountant to have any place in a Fun activity. As to how far you can strain your ability to spend: GM discretion and a sense of realism.

>
>Why are some affinities/secrets/whatever under the various gods'
>descriptions listed in boldface, and others not?

The boldface stuff is the god's affinities, the general magical areas that they can influence.

>
>Questions about the sample character, Kallai, page 28:
>
>"Great deity: Orlanth 13": What? Where did that come from? Where in the
>rules does it say who gets a "great deity", what "great deity" they get,
>what it means to have a "great deity", and what it means to have a "great
>deity" of 13?

Orlanth is the Great Deity of the theist pantheon Kallai worships. And I haven't the foggiest where that number comes from.... Unless it's a default number for the relationship he has to Orlanth.
>
>"Initiate of: Humakt": Huh? But he's a warrior, not a god-talker.
>God-talkers are the only ones who have the "initiate to (god)" skill. Or
>does that mean that they're able to initiate other people?

Yes, he was initiated into the cult by a god-talker. He is an initiate of the cult.
>
>"Devotee of: Humakt 17": How did he become a devotee? Does every character
>get to be a devotee of somebody, as opposed to a just plain initiate? And
>what does the "17" mean? When answering that last question, please keep in
>mind that the character has a specific "mythology of Humakt" ability, as
>well as specific Humakt affinities. So if this "devotee of Humakt 17" is
>neither knowing about Humakt nor being able to channel Humakt, what is it?
>

Right. It does seem that the default level of the game is that people start as Devotees of some god or other, roughly the equivalent of the old Rune Level status. There are instructions about how to become a devotee during play at the end of the Theistic Magic chapter. The 17 is the character's Relationship to Humakt score which is used in ways detailed in that chapter.

>"Eastern Customs 13, Eastern Languages 13, Foreign Customs 13, Foreign
>Languages 13": You mean to tell me that "foreign languages" is a single
>skill? As opposed to, say, "French" or "Korean"? This strikes me as
>extremely munchkinistic.

Well, yes. It is a very broad skill and quite subject to abuse if you want to. It is controlled by GM common sense and the character's background.

>Why not, say, "Kallai can kill things", leading to
>a "kill" skill of 13, obviating the need for "sword" or "spear" or whatever;
>he just can kill, regardless of whether he has a particular implement handy
>or not?
>

And since he has Close Combat as a skill he probably can since but at an Improvisational Modifier since he doesn't have he favourite weapons handy. How do you think Beatpot Aelwrin got his reputation?

End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #698


Powered by hypermail