Re: Gloranthan Reality & Hero Wars

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:45:22 -0000

> What is a flickering blade supposed to look like,

A blade, that flickers? :)

>or do?

Flicker :) Actually, I have no problem with this specific one (especially after a look at the box cover), but I do agree with you in principal.  

> RQ had the serious problem of it's era. Spell mechanics were
described,
> not the important stuff. What does this magic look and feel like,
how
> does it work.

Nonetheless, that approach was simple to impliment (albeit there was a lot more to learn about the mechanics with every spell described).   

> RQ-2 at least described disruption to be a heat based attack. RQ-3
> didn't even have this anymore.

This reminds me of one of the Call of Cthulhu spells. Originally called 'Shriving', it changed to 'Shrivelling' after a few editions (what edition are we at now? 5.2 I think...). Presumably so the word would be recognised and remembered.  

> Hero Wars isn't helping much. Now we only have a cool name. The
> mechanics are pretty much the same for each feat, and we don't get
_any_
> description for a vast majority of them.

Which many will say just allows you to individualise your game. I say it penalises people who want to PLAY the game, not write it for themselves...

> I wonder how long it will be until the authors decide that naming
the
> feats and affinities limit's the creativity of gamers.

I don't think it limits the creativity, but it does distract from the game when you have to stop for a time every time someone tries to think up a pretty special effect. I don't refuse to game with people who have limited imaginations (I don't choose my friends according to their suitability for gaming), but the problem here is the game is stuck plodding along at the speed of the least imaginative.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail