Re: Re: Clarifying Theistic Magic

From: Robert McArthur <mcarthur_at_...>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 11:04:51 +1000


JEFFREY KYER wrote:
>
>
> >
> > But wouldn't he simply stick his own definition on and stick to
> that?
> > Or at least stick rigidly to the first use he accepted? He would
> > probably be very literal in interpreting the wording too, so Sunset
> > Leap would have a very limited time window to be used in, and Spit
> > Down Wind would be messy...

OK, obviously a long-discussed area I brought up :-)

<RANT>
However, from my perspective and those I've gamed with, I don't want one description - a RQ spell or ability. I want, say 4-5 totally different and some weird and inventive ways of "Seeing" the feat or ability or spell or ... This to give me an idea of different uses, as well as different levels of effect. HW has *not* got out of putting numbers on things - 9w3 etc. So showing the difference between 9w3 hail and 9w1 hail and 1w3 hail and 20w2 hail would be incredibly useful to me. I don't care if they come from 6 different campaigns! But until that happens, someone with 1w3 hail is going to be arguing to do what I consider to be 9w3 hail. I'm the narrator, I win. Phooee. I'm playing the game for enjoyment, not to have arguments every two minutes!

Please, bring on the proscriptiveness
and then let me, as narrator in my own game, decide what I'll use/ allow and what I won't. I can show the players what's written, then tell them how I'm going to play & interpret it. It's like the difference between having a meeting where noone has done any work beforehand and you're all trying to work it out on the spot, from 10 different directions, and a meeting at which one or two people have done some thinking and written down some notes for people to *READ*. Now, the meeting almost never takes what has been written as perfect and final. Often the results have nothing to do with the original written items. But the fact that there is something on paper helps the meeting incredibly (I'm a semi-professional meeting facilitator in my spare time...). IMHO HW needs that at the moment. IMHO the rules won't be adversly effected in any way by having it - the rules are strong enough and well thought out enough to only be enhanced by such descriptions.
</RANT>

I know you've all probably talked this through to death, but as someone who has only just purchased HW, in order to GM it, I find it a) a very interesting but hard change to make from RQ and other systems, and b) possibly (!) unplayable at the moment without someone experienced in the system.

A number of times in the rules
it even states something like "See the games books (like thunder rebels) to understand this or get what/how we mean it." [note, the quotes are obviously me saying it but trying to indicate my understanding of what the rules say!]

So far: very interesting, different, but not very playable. Please note this is from initial impressions (about three reads of the rules) but no gaming as yet. I'll be keeping reading all the discussions as much as I can - especially those that do a detailed example of a situation, especially down to the AP bidding level!!

Robert

Powered by hypermail