>I do not think this is entirely accurate. Runequest was ALL about making
assocations with cults in order ot get magic
I meant mechanically. Yes, RQ was about who you had to go to in order to get the magic, but, generally in games without relationship mechanics, this is sort of a one-shot deal quite often. That is, you do X for them, and they give you Y. Sometimes you have a theoretical continuing attachment, but most times in play of such games, this doesn't come up unless the GM needs a plot hook or something. These relationships are annoyances often, rather than something players like to play about.
In HQ, the game informs the player that relationships are good for the character, and subsequently you see players playing all about their associations voluntarily. "Oh, that's something that would piss off my teacher? I augment with my relationship, knowing that he'd want me to right this wrong!" I see it constantly. Very effective, while leaving it all a player choice. That is, nobody has to force the players to "play correctly," they're incentivized to do so.
As to the level of enumeration of the particulars of each cult, I don't have anything against details like this. While the HQ material written so far seems to have somewhat less detail than the RQ detail before, it's not the system that makes this happen. In any case, for my part, I like making up the details as I play, so I'm not concerned. There's no reason that the HQ mechanics have to substitute for detail. You can have your cake and eat it, too, there.
Mike
Powered by hypermail