Keeping things down to a double-page spread makes for a manageable introduction. It needs more cultural background for any narrator who wants his Glorantha to bear a reasonably close resemblence to what Issaries is going to be publishing.
This works better in the ILH book, where the Homeland spreads are supplemented by the geographical descriptions. It would still be necessary to just make up a huge amount of stuff on the various magics, of course. Oh, and animists need fully described magical keywords more than theists do, I think -- but theists still need a little description of what the god is like, in addition to 3 affinities, so you have guidelines in making up the cult abilities and virtues. In fact, it might be worth while to include virtues even in the ultra-short Homeland occupational magic listings, if there isn't a longer entry to refer to.
> 2. Do the changes in animism and wizardry make these characters
more
> interesting and playable? Are they clear and comprehensible?
Animism: yes, definitely more interesting and more playable: now normal animists *do* things, not just shamans. It looks more or less balanced with theism, but I'm not confident of that judgement without actually playing it to see.
Wizardry: it's a good thing to have a mid-level between communal worshippers and wizards/sorcerers. However, the one-use-only restriction for orderlies sure looks crippling compared to theistic initiates (or animist practitioners, probably). Nor do I see why it's needed for game balance, since it seems to me that the tradeoff between affinities and spells is already adequate -- I would say that the improvisation penalty to affinities is adequately balanced by the narrow use of spells + need for a material talisman.
[If it doesn't work out as balanced, the penalty I'd stick orderlies with off the top of my head would be a -1 to a spell's rating every time you use it, until a liturgy renews the link to the Spell Plane.]
As it stands, it looks like while wizardry can go toe-to-toe with theism on a societal level (because liturgists give them magical augmentation specialists), on the level of the individual player this is not the case. A character based on theism will be significantly superior to a character based on wizardry at the initiate/orderly level -- and quite possibly the devotee/adept level as well. (Due to the HP cost structure: devotees can raise all their feats by raising their affinities; adepts can raise their grimoire ratings, but that doesn't affect their spells. Or am I missing something? OTOH, the theoretical ability to learn other grimoires tips the balance back towards adepts.)
> 3. The original sample adventures in HW came in for a degree of
> criticism -- what do you think of the ones in HQ?
I haven't looked at the adventures yet.
> 4. Treat the current book size as a constant: who else would you
> have wanted to have seen included, and what would you have
sacrificed
> to make way for it? The answer 'nothing, it's great as is' is an
> acceptable one, BTW!
I don't have any large-scale suggestions.
I'd probably have made a few replacements on the section level, e.g. used uz instead of Teshnos in the homelands example; used different hero band samples.
I missed the example of a courtship as an extended contest going on across months or years, in the background of a game: that was what "clicked" the versatility of the basic mechanic for me.
> These are, of course, just a few questions to start you off --
*any*
> constructive commentary is always appreciated.
The common magic rules make Glorantha a more pervasively magical place. The introduction to Dragon Pass, besides being a Good Thing in itself, also helps maintain the flavor of weird magical stuff at all levels of the world.
The stress on relationships (a full chapter + a prominent spot on the character sheet) is a Very Good Thing.
Craig Neumeier, LHN
Powered by hypermail