No, not the enjoyment of my own game. But it makes it very difficult to discuss the game in a meaningful way, since we first have to establish how we interpret the core structural elements in HW, and how Glorantha is portrayed in the game design.
>Every game has its share of house rules, no matter how well the authors
>tried to nail things down. In fact, the more you try to nail them down, the
>more holes appear. So, we don't try to nail 'em down very hard at all. Is
>Magic Always Superior? No. Are there hard and fast rules about when it is,
>and when it isn't? No. Do we expect the narrator to decide when it is and
>when it isn't? Damn straight. Do we see this as a bug or a feature? Feature.
>
I'm not talking about house rules. I'm talking about having a common understanding of core structural elements. A house rule is largely a variation of how a specific structural element should manifest itself in da roolz.
I'm baffled to hear that the relationship between magical and mundane abilities is a "house rule". If that is the case, then HW is basically just a framework for a DIY RPG.
There are some elements of Glorantha that are generally accepted, and form the basis of our shared understanding of the world. Likewise, there should be some elements of HW that are generally accepted, the relationship between magical and mundane abilities being one such element.
HW is designed to be flexible, which means that we need some elements that are nailed down very hard indeed so we can have something to hang the flexibility around. If nothing is stable, then we have no game but a loose amalgamation of ideas for a game.
I don't know about you, but i don't want to design and redesign the game constantly while i'm playing it. I want to Narrate, not Design Games.
-- - Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
Powered by hypermail