> > All contests are treated equaly - no special
> > rules just for combats.
>
>Except we have these fragments about arms and armor, and no other
>tools are discussed except in passing. Why is that, do you think?
>Mayhap it has something to do with special rules for combat...
In my Standard Rant about combat systems, I refer to this phenomenon - a result of the lingering wargaming heritage of RPGs.
Essentially there are systems today, of which HQ is one, in which there are no specific rules that solely make sense for combat. The system can be exended equally to cover anything. However, all the "examples" are given in terms of combat, which does still leave a slight textual bias towards combat. The question of how much that impacts play is one of the method of translation of the textual rules to play. That is, for the GM who "sees" the application of the rules to everything, the bias probably won't have too much effect (other than to inform him that Glorantha is a potentially violent place, which the cultures do even moreso). If the GM reads it as a "Combat System", which is a real possibility, then the bias takes on a much stronger effect in the game. Essentially GM bias (as the guy who frames the Conflccits, players are also important interpereters) becomes important in the interpretetation. Much moreso than in most systems where there really are special rules that only pertain to combat.
The textual bit that I think is more telling than the parts about armor and weapons in terms of this bias, is the results of conflict being listed as Hurt, Wounded, Incapacitated, and Dying. To be "politically correct" in terms of not being biased towards combat, these should have been something like: marginal flaw, minor flaw, major flaw, permenant flaw. Instead we have to have text explaining that instead of the character actually dying, he could be permenantly unable to change his mind about the facts of the argument had, etc. Which makes that seem like the exception to the use of the rules.
So, as people have been pointing out, "alternate wounding" should be "alternate impairment" or something. But I think we all here see the universal applicability of these mechanics, FWIW.
Mike
Powered by hypermail