Right. Such as how by moving all traits and conflicts to equal footing, HQ2 moves away from "the game is about combat" aspect that so many games have just by way of having whole separate rules by combat.
>
> Pendragon has rules for running a generational campaign. You can
> obviously run a multi-year game without, but the aging and childbirth
> rules helped support this.
>
*nod* In HQ2 in particular, I would think any rules NOT about conflict resolution (which is in many ways the only core mechanic in the game) are fairly easily tacked on. (For instance, my space opera game has rules about starships that have nothing to do with the resolution system.)
> In many ways, Glorantha is all about magic, and by having a few rules
> devoted to magic, HQ (as extended by Sartar: KoH) promotes this.
>
Oh, I agree you need rules about Gloranthan magic. It's essential to the world.
orlanthumathi wrote:
>
> I think it boils down to that age old question of "need" in RPG
> publishing. Experienced role-players don't really need a great deal of
> guidance to play in ways that they are familiar with or within a
> setting that they are familiar with. Those of us that have been
> playing in Glorantha since the 80's will tend to de-construct new
> methods and setting detail and put them back together in a manner that
> suits our own preference. But new iterations of the rules are not
> really aimed at us old-timers.
>
It boils down again to design philosophy, Which rules are being
introduced and why, and what's the philosophy behind them. RQ had a
magic system chosen for some combination of integrity with the rest of
the system, game balance, game fun, view of gloranthan magic, etc. etc.
So does HQ2, presumably.
> On the other hand HQ2 can be played in a very paired-down manner which
> really doesn't need alteration, and I personally find that very
> appealing. And in many ways the core HQ2 game already has a very clear
> vision regards what the players do, and any alterations inevitably
> move this in a new direction.
>
Agreed. I don't like adding mechanical categories to the rules that
aren't there, when I think the rules don't need them added.
> For a specific example, my games have always been relatively flexible
> on the membership of religions. The HQ1 and HW rules limitations on
> being a devotee and an initiate didn't fit with that style, so I
> adjusted them, allowing for cultural compatibilities that were
> reasonably uncontroversial within the setting but barred by the rules.
> The rules made sense and were a close fit to the Glorantha I was used
> to, but once you have a feel for the way the rules operate you also
> have a feel for the ones that can be bent or discarded.
>
*nod* Since i was introduced to Glorantha through the HW and HQ1 rules,
I did what is common, and tried to deduce what the setting accepted by
way of the rules, not realizing there had been no intention to have the
rules describe the setting. I didn't have the knowledge to see that
combinations that were uncontroversial but forbidden by the rules were
uncontroversial. I, unsurprisingly, figured the designers made those
combinations impossible in the rules to highlight that they were impossible.
>
>
> Now, with HQ2 Glorantha, the Rune Affinity idea doesn't work for me, I
> like the general idea, but the restrictions placed on religious choice
> again don't quite suit the kind of game I want and the way I view the
> setting, even within a single cult the restrictions feel a touch
> artificial to me. If a player has a character concept that seems
> correct to me but is restricted or disallowed by the rules I will make
> careful and informed changes adapting and changing to suit.
>
See, I am torn whether the addition of Rune Affinities is an attempt by
the designers to say something about Orlanthi magic or not. Thus the
restrictions and elements that come up become representative of
something about the Orlanthi approach. Should one view the mechanical
distinctions between Spirit/Theist/Essence magic as reflective of
something about the way Gloranthan magic works, or not? Since HQ2
doesn't need any of these mechanical distinctions to work, I have been
assuming that adding them in is a specific move by the designers/writers
to highlight things they feel are true about Glorantha, to get the
players to do something, as David points out. Or, they are just in the
appendix because they were in HW and HQ1 and people expect to see them
there and the idea that all Theist magic works the same way mechanically
regardless of culture will go out the window in the future.
I mean, it's HQ2, you could just have people take a keyword "My Magic" and it would work perfectly well from a mechanical view. ^_^ The system I'm trying to draft up for Rule One is a bit more involved than that, but you certainly don't need to have more complicated rules as long as you explain what "My Magic" is effective for.
>
> Note however, far from finding new rule sets frustrating I am always
> interested in their take; they always challenge my views and often
> change them. I have a very different view of Orlanthi society and
> religion to the one I had back when I first played RQ, and I certainly
> have a very different view of the ideal RPG.
>
Indeed. I happen to like the Rune Affinity thing in its implication that
Orlanthi in some way view themselves as tied to the primal powers more
than they do the gods. Your adult initiation doesn't initiate you to a
god, it pulls up the connection to the runes in your soul directly.
That's kind of an interesting view, and seems to fit some of the raucous
individualism of the culture.
LC
Powered by hypermail