I haven't noticed that Glorantha has suddenly become more vague.
> > > > 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.
My point was that it irritates me that the ritual to enchant a Thunderstone can *only* result in a souped-up slingstone. I simply don't see theistic magic as being *that* specialized.
For campaign-technical reasons i like to have fluid, versatile magic with a minimum of book-keeping and referencing. It takes too much effort to keep track of lots of specialized magics.
And theistic magic actually does everything and cleans the kitchen sink too; you can (and should!) improvise lots of effects from any given affinity. Orlanth has the power of Storm in general; not an array of specialized storm-related spells.
> > >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.
There is. Knowing that some weird clan use Orlanth's Storm affinity only in Storm Season is world detail. Knowing that they get a +5 bonus for every kg of enchanted thunderstone used in the Storm Summoning ritual is game detail. And unnecessary to boot.
> 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.
People are having trouble with archery because they assume it must work in a simulationistic manner. It's not a problem with the rules per se, but with player assumptions. And on that note i do agree that it would have been nice with better examples and suggestions on how to use the mechanics in play
A feat is a suggestion on how to use the affinity. A feat does not have a precise, unchangeable effect, not even in Glorantha.
> > Thunderstones weren't even mentioned until GoG, IIRC.
>
>But GoG handled them rather nicely. Ready to play and all.
Which misses the point. Before GoG you didn't even know about Thunderstone. Did your Glorantha suffer for the hitherto unknown lack of Thunderstones?
-- - Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
Powered by hypermail