Re: Mundane vs Magical; Narrative vs Simulationist

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:21:54 -0800


Roderick

> When using magic on a sentient or magical being/item, the magical resistance
> of "the world" (14) is only used if the item being affected does not have
> anything better. using "Glance of Death" against a person is not an easy
> thing - you don't get the 14 resistance, you get the best appropriate
> defense that the target has.

My only change to this would be to delete "on a sentient or magical being/item." I think things work better that way. In most cases, there's no difference in practice, given that sentient or magical beings/items have a wider range of abilities to defend with, as in your example:

> On the other hand, using "Glance of Death" against a plain ol' tree would
> probably get a 14 resistance.

But I do believe that a plain ol' redwood tree could resist being jumped over with its Tall, which is better than 14. I think this gives Narrators a much wider range of obstacles, and makes it easier to construct stories without having to fall back on cliches like "it's a magical tree."

To change the example, what if the ability were Leap over Water? In my conception of Glorantha, people don't jump between the continents, between most of the East Isles, or even over the Oslir River. IMO, this is not because they are magical bodies of water, but because they are simply too big, and their Wide rating is too large to overcome. This is easier as a Narrator, because I don't have to know which bodies of water are magical.

Wulf

> Mile Javelin Throw - throw it up to a mile with no range penalty (just
> resistance 14). Then, (as part of the same action or another one) use
> your Ranged Combat (javelin) to actually hit something. Now THAT is
> magical, not just a little glitter round your javelin. Why crush all
> magic down into the mundane? You should have to work hard and long to
> match your mundane abilities with the magic.

Because I like to see magic get better as you put hero points into it.

Because I don't want a squad of weaponthanes to take out the enemy chief at a distance of a mile. (I've played Traveller games like that, where your laser rifle can do that, and it's boring.)

Andreas

> > Why do you think that naratively determined rules are going to be
> > any less realistic than strictly simulationist ones?
>
> Because they are inconsistent nearly 70% of the time.

Well, there's a simulationist answer :-)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

The hard part of course is knowing which parts (the 30%?) are foolish. Perhaps we need more articles on how Hero Wars is a great tool for participating in fun stories.

Or even ways to better describe a contest of Tracking.

Mikko

> I was just responding to somebody who claimed
> that narrative and simulationistic approaches are equally realistic.

Clearly narrative approaches are more realistic, because it's easier to correct for bad assumptions in the model. (Check any Murphy's Rules cartoon for examples of flaws in simulationist rules.)

David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Powered by hypermail