Re: Thunderstone

From: Tim Ellis <tim_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:36:33 -0000

The Gods of Glorantha Prospaedia (sp) approach . . . Which is what the shortform writeups we have in HW are the equivalent of. I hope and suspect that TR/SR/SGU etc will provide more information in the tradition of Cults of Prax/Cults of Terror/Troll Gods.

I think we are much better off with HW than RQ2 and it's choice of "Orlanth, Kygor Litor or Black Fang"

> > The RQ version of Thunderstone was a stone imbued with the power
of
> > Thunder, usable only for lobbing it at your enemies. The HW
version
> > is that you imbue a stone with the power of Thunder, usable for
> > whatever is appropriate, which includes, but is not limited to,
> > lobbing it at your foes.
>
> And this makes for a more believable and deep Glorantha to you?
>

Yes! Unless you think in a deep and believable world a stone imbued with the power of thunder had one, and only one power, how could it not do so?
>
> > Remember, just because something was determined in RQ doesn't
mean
> > that that description was actually correct or exhaustive.
>
> It's way better than not having any!

I'm not convinced that no description (actually minimal, since the name of the feat and the affinity to which it belongs is "some description") is worse than having an incorrect and incomplete description - especially if you treat that incorrect and incomplete description as being exhaustive and infallible...

Powered by hypermail