Re: Re: Thunderstone

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:07:00 +0300 (EET DST)


On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Mikael Raaterova wrote:

> Sorry about the misreference.

No prob. I know how easily one get's them wrong.  

>> >Are we all just left to our own devices. The

> >cults for instance get only the bare outline, with feats named with
> >whatever amused the writer at the moment "the names mean nothing anyway,
> >they'll just have to make it up themselves"
>
> Oh, come on. Nobody is willfully making Glorantha more vague.

No? It sure seems like the new and Vogue design philosophy is making sure of that.

"There will be no feat descriptions" is something that has been stated to us on this list by one of the authors, quite clearly. We aren't going to get those details, we are just going to get a vague feat/spell name. Hero Wars is such an abstract game engine, that it's not helping either.

> > > 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. The RQ version of Thunderstone paints a far too simplistic
> Gloranthan reality, as pertains to Thunderstones. You do this
> magnificent enchantment and end up with a souped-up slingstone. Is
> that all there is to it? HW lets me treat Thunderstones far more
> realistically.

Just? Why is slingstone magic poor to you? Why does every theistic feat have to "do everything and clean the kitchen sink too"? To me it feels like lazy gamedesign. It's a way of avoiding the work of thinking it out, and leaving the responsibility on each and every GM actually running the game.  

> > > Why do you feel this acute need to have everything determined and
> > > described? It boggles me.
> >
> >It's the details that make the world. Othervice we are just playing make
> >believe, and we dont need any rules or backround for that. The details
> >make Glorantha come alive.
>
> Yes. Details about the world. Not about game mechanics.

There isn't that much difference between the two. In HW having a verbal description would be quite enough, _and_ it would effectively be game mechanics as well. What's the allergy with game mechanics anyway. HW has gone so Rules Lite that we are having trouble with simple things like archery or knowing what the "#%"% a given feat is supposed to do anyway. Is that making it easier to run a game in Glorantha. I don't think 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!
>
> Please! How much Gloranthan details were in the RQ2 box? Details
> about the world came in the supplements. There is far more
> Glorantha-material in the HW box than there was in the RQ2 and 3
> boxes together.

It's good. But the detail is not much on the level that one actually needs to run a game. RQ-2 was much more ready to play right out of the box than HW still is, after 3 books.  

> Thunderstones weren't even mentioned until GoG, IIRC.

But GoG handled them rather nicely. Ready to play and all.

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail