> Thom writes:
>
> > According to Thunder Rebels, secrets that work like mystic strikes
> > etc. involve achieving a (degree of) mystical insight into the
> > world.
i.e., it's a game world thing, so why a different mechanic from feats, if mechanics are expressions of the narrative, rather than directly of said gameworld? (AKA the Sin of Simulationism.)
Nick Brooke:
> According to HW:RiG p.166, there is no connection between the rules
> used to represent a Secret and the nature of that Secret. I wonder
> why Thunder Rebels changed this?
As far as I can see, that boxed section is basically just a top-down- Glorantha cosmological meander, and has nothing to do with either the game as a game, or the endogenous perceptions of the game-world practioners.
The whole thing could more concisely have been stated as something like: All Theistic Secrets are theistic regardless of their game mechanical expression, but they do correspond [again, _regardless_ of whether they are "mystic strikes" or not] with the trancendent nature of the deity or aspect worshipped.
Powered by hypermail