> DD always cites Conan when this rules issue comes up, which isn't
> necessarily the most obvious of narrative models for the style of
> game he otherwise describes his group as having...
We're pretty darned heroic in our games, though I admit we're not as peripatetic as Conan.
I figured most people know of Conan, but he's just a modern invention, so here's a better example:
Gunnar Hamundarson "was a tall, powerful man, outstandingly skilful with arms. He could strike or throw with either hand, and his sword-strokes were so fast that he seemed to be brandishing three swords at once. He was excellent at archery, and his arrows never missed their mark." "Gunnar saw the spear coming, whirled round faster than the eye could follow, caught the spear in flight with his left hand, and hurled it back at Karl's ship. The man who was in its way fell dead." "The [magic] halberd fell down. Gunnar snatched it up and ran Hallgrim through with it; and from then on, Gunnar always carried that halberd." (He's later mentioned as taking sword and halberd together when he expects violence.) [Njal's Saga]
BTW, I don't really think the change in question makes much difference (thanks to improvisation), but I disagree with Jeff as to whether a single Close Combat ability is a crock.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail