Re: Description of Glorantha

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:43:43 +0800

>Let's aim for a solution, or this thread will keep on coming back :
>
>I think that we, as a group, are confusing things in a very silly and
>destructive way : that is, we're confusing the HW rules with Glorantha.

        I think this is an oversimplification. The issues are inextricably bound up.

> >From the rules POV it is, IMO, vitally important that every player have his
>freedom to interpret Feats etc *however* he likes.

        I don't think this is true. Some interpretations are wrong. But given a few relatively simple rules (ie words should be interpreted naturally rather than metaphorically, feat names should not rely on external Gloranthan knowledge to interpret), we can get to the point where it is a non-problem.

        Consider what I am asking for as simply lets have the 10% or less of feats that we argue about to be as clearly worded as the 90% or more that we do NOT argue about. This is a rules issue, even though its not a change to the core rules - those feats are part of the HW rules.

>For the definition of Glorantha, though, there must be some consistency. (But
>consistency is not, AFAICS, a rules issue.)

        It belongs on the HW list, though, because the feat names are artifacts of the HW rules. The feat names are not what the Gloranthans call them, necessarily, either. (And a good thing too, with the Orlanthi inheriting the Viking love of poetic metaphor)

>
>This is, ultimately, an issue of poetics. HW provides the grammar for superior
>Gloranthan gaming ; the verb system, and the 'little words'. Interpretation of
>Gloranthan vocabulary, ie Feat names, contents of keywords, etc.. is an
>obviously more complex issue, AKA Gloranthan Lore.

        If, to work out what a feat written in the HW rules does, we have to go to the level of Gloranthan knowledge that demands moving it to the GD - then we have already lost. If it requires that level of Gloranthan knowledge to interpret, then we have created a feat that will always be confusing to new players.

	That can never be a good thing. Hence, its a failure of the HW rules.
	Now, sure, at times we might want to nail down the specifics 

of what a feat does for consistency (should you be able to use Swordhelp to aid a mace at an improv penalty? What about using Axe Berserk to go berserk if you don't have an axe? Can you use Sunset Leap to leap straight to the Isles of Dusk?*), and sometimes Gloranthan knowledge will come into that. But that really is the sort of stuff for which there is no right answer (which doesn't make asking the question any less valid). But the Feats themselves should be straight forward enough that we don't have to have arguments about what they do in the first place.

	Cheers
		David

• Yes, but not Truesword Stroke, Yes, but with an improv penalty, Yes in theory, but at a resistance so huge not even Mastakos could manage it, because you get distance penalties (and you are simultaneously moving to the Other Side), so its about W9 at least.