Re: magical vs.mundane resistance

From: Oliver D. Bernuetz <bernuetz_at_...>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:34:31 -0000

Bryan said:
>
> Another problem is that the rules don't give a clear way of setting
> the difficulty and judging success levels in situations like
running
> a certain distance in a certain time. If it is a marathon "can you
> keep running that far without collapsing" then going against
distance
> is appropriate. But if it is a modest distance, the only issue is
> how fast you can run it, and the only way to set the difficulty is
by
> story conditions ("can you do it before they light the fire? roll
> against, oh, a 19"). In the more general case, the HQ rules very
> specifically do not cover a quantative best effort result, so there
> is no "in-the-book" way to simply say how long it takes each person
> to run a certain distance, or how far they can run in a certain
> amount of time. (One of those features that can bug you sometimes,
> but inherent in the dramatic resolution concept I suppose).

That'd be Torg which had a built-in system for determining difficulties that worked more or less well but was at least always consistent:-)

My biggest problem with this whole business is that it seems to me that in most cases all you ever use your magic for is to augment some mundane ability which invariably is rated higher.

It seems that the trend is towards saying that the 14 resistance for magic only applies when there's no active foe (my term) involved.

Why then as a Humakti would I use my Decapitate Foe feat at say 18 when I could easily be using my sword and shield skill at 3W2 (augmented plus 2 for my Sword affinity of course). I still win and the guy's still dead (if I do well enough). In fact I can't cut his head off unless I get a complete victory so what's the big deal of using the feat? I can just say I bid all my AP and try and cut his head off. Would anyone not let him/her do so if they bid all their AP and got a complete victory? I doubt it. Yes the "it's mythically/story cool to use the feat" explanation works but it seems kind of hollow to me.

The only reason to use magic as an active ability (that I can see) is if you're trying to do something that a mundane ability can't achieve, e.g. fly or hit something that can't be affected by normal weapons. Now if you're not allowed to use a 14 resistance (in the second case) you are in serious trouble. I supposed you can augment with your sword skill, etc. but you'll still probably be at a disadvantage.

> I do agree that the result of magical abilities can vary greatly,
and
> perhaps oddly to those not used to Glorantha, depending on the
> situation and opposition. A Humkti might manage to fairly
> easy "decapitate foe" on a burly guard who was caught by surprise
and
> who had little magic, but might utterly fail against a frail and
> elderly priest.

Hmm, that'd only work if you were saying that you could use the background resistance in the first case which I suspect people may not.

On a separate topic it's been suggested that what feats allow you to do could be determined by what the Myth says. On the surface this is a cool idea, colour wise that is. Other people have suggested that the need to know hundreds of myths may be burdensome. I'd like to suggest that if we need that kind of paperwork to run this system why not just do up a feat list with description and parameters and get it over with?

But seriously, what do you do with vague feat names like Destor's Leap Over Obstacle? It's pretty likely that all the myth itself says is "And Destor encountered numerous obstacles and leapt over them". Lot's do. And what about different gods with the same feat? Check out Lodril and Oria's kids in the HeroQuest book. Are their feats more or less identical in function? And those of the various subcults of Orlanth? Are they the same or did Finovar do soemthing a little farther or bigger than Destor?

Oliver