> From: gamartin_at_...
> >
> > gamartin_at_n...:
> > > It's not "1HP to learn a style"; it is "1HP to cement a style".
> > >
> > > Learning is a function of the character; cementing is a function
> of
> > > the character sheet.
> >
> > OK, if you must: much such "styles" are grossly underpriced at
> > _2_ HP, which does not admit such a rationale.
>
> A matter, of opinion, which I am on the record as disagreeing with.
You're on record as bringing up the "cementing" distinction, which I was here specifically attempting to dispose of. If you have some fresh point to make which does _not_ reply on this distinction, I'd be pleased to see it.
> > I don't really agree with the distinction as you're drawing it, but
> > since it only applies to the "left column" of the development costs
> > chart, that surely needn't detain us unduly long here...
>
> The system is designed to model the impact of the character on the
> world. In this regard, a Mighty Warrior who travels to far off lands
> and comes back with one (count 'em) new weapon technique has not
> significantly altered the impact they have on the world. And thus,
> it SHOULD be cheap.
That is quite manifestly not what the rules describe themselves as modelling. The rules are intended to support description of the _narrative_, not to model the world in any other sense. Thus the question is more properly posed as, which sorts of narratives should be more expressly supported in the rules, ones in which there is very little distinction made between different fighting styles, different cultural traditions, and even different weapons, or ones in which this is made more of?
It's already been pointed out that these things _are_ often significant in genre fiction in general; perhaps even more to the point, they're significant in much of what we already know about Glorantha, including some of its actual _myths_, which seems to be a rather crucial matter to ignore. "By the book" HW allows little taking account of Orlanth being the conquerer of all weapons, and Humakt the master of just one, does it?
> The discussion of whether or not this is "hard for the warrior" is
> beside the point. That is not what the cost measures.
I would largely agree, except that was being brought up by the other faction, in a tactic that struck me as being analogous to charging uphill in the rain, and so I couldn't resist a few volleys of fire from my well-emplaced position...
Powered by hypermail