Re: Re: "Sufficient" detail

From: Frank Rafaelsen <rafael_at_...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:07:18 +0200 (CEST)


On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Anthony Utano wrote:

> > A single word does not adequately describe a magic power.
>
> This is exactly the problem that I have with the system. We have a
> wonderful rich and delightfully ambiguous mythology, and it is
> _ruined_ by being forced into a couple of 'affinities' each of 1-3
> words. How many people really think that the full flavour of a vast
> set of myths can be described in 10 words !!!?

This is actually quite interesting. I agree with the problem: capturing the full flavour of myth. But my answer is the direct oposit. I don't think you can describe magic in ten words, a hundered word or a thousand words. That is why I like ambigious names.

You know, this is like poetry. A short verse can in some ways capture something a lot more accuratly than ten encyclopedias. Poetry works just as much by form as by content. We are talking about magic remember. And for me there is nothing that destroys a sense of wonder and magic quicker than definitions. It is to scientific-ish.

Out of interest I asked two of my players how they felt about the system (both a have played other role-playing games before. One of them a lot of games. Neither know that much about glorantha). Both of them liked it, one of them even said it just might be the coolest part of HW. But, and he stressed this, the system depended on a GM that dared to let the players define the magic (said while looking sternly at me btw :)

Take it for what it is worth. But my players like the freedom it gives.

Ha en god dag!
Frank Rafaelsen

Powered by hypermail