> A feat that figures in a myth is merely a manifestation of an
> affinity. It is the affinity that is important. The feats are
> suggested uses of the affinity.
> >one is going to allow any old interpretation on the feats, then
> why have
> >named feats, why not just have the affinities?
> Because it's nice to have some inspiration when coming up with
> affinity effects.
This is exactly what people are asking for, just a bit more inspiration than you seem to need. Currently, if we interpret feats as totally freeform, then there is no need for feats.
By providing a bit more of a mythic underpinning to each of the feats, we add to Glorantha and provide more inspiration to players. If players are so limited that by stating that they will take a short description as gospel as to what a feat does regardless of what else is said in the rules, then stating there are set feats is going to do exactly the same thing to such players.
The thing that sucked me in to Glorantha all those years ago, was not RuneQuest, but Cults of Prax. The big thing that Glorantha always had going for it was Glorantha, not the system. I think the cult descriptions in HW shortchange us on the world in somewhat the same way RQ3 shortchanged us with Fantasy Europe.
I like Hero Wars, but the feats are clearly key aspects of the mythology of the various gods and just a name hardly tells us anything. I'm not particularly worried about game effects, I'll tell my players it doesn't work if I don't want them to do it. I just want more on the mythic basis for the feat.
All in my subjective wants of course :-)
Powered by hypermail