> Comrades!
>
> As more and more of you get your hands on HQ and have the chance to
> look over it, obviously it would be good to hear any feedback. Here
> are a few specific questions of interest to me, to kick things off.
Well, I've been reading it for a week, and my overall impression is VERY positive. This is the first rules book that I've read since the early 80s where I don't have the impression that huge sections of the rules are either broken or unsatisfying or flawed, and that give me the impression that I can just play them as is, notwithstanding the inevitable house rules micro-tweakage or two.
No overhaul necessary.
Everything you need to play in one book (and this time, it's TRUE !!).
If RQ2 - CoP - CoT is the classic trilogy, HW was the Ralph Bakshi animated version (ie cool, but improvable), HQ is the extended edition Peter Jackson version with cool special effects and an epic musical score.
:-)
> 1. What do people think of the Homelands approach?
I like it.
I notice that it's been somewhat fine-tuned between ILH and HQ : well done !!
> Is there enough of a basis there to start you off?
Yep.
And far more in HQ than in ILH. It's good that the Homelands were all put one after the other in the new book, it is far less confusing.
> 2. Do the changes in animism and wizardry make these characters more
> interesting and playable?
Yep ! :-)
> Are they clear and comprehensible?
Well, I think that the terminology used could have been clearer. The difference between charms, talents, and fetishes isn't as self-evident as it could have been, nor is the difference between scriptures, grimoires, and formularies.
It would have been helpful IMO to use more clearly distinctive words (or concepts) for these things.
Apart from that, yes the rules are pretty clear, and I'm happy that a similar format was used for the three otherworld magic approaches, although it does have the drawback of some repetitivity at first read.
> 3. The original sample adventures in HW came in for a degree of
> criticism -- what do you think of the ones in HQ?
They're great !!
> 4. Treat the current book size as a constant: who else would you
> have wanted to have seen included, and what would ou have sacrificed
> to make way for it? The answer 'nothing, it's great as is' is an
> acceptable one, BTW!
Er, well to be honest I think that this is the best introduction to Gloranthan roleplaying that I've ever read.
OK, there's a couple of things I'd like to have seen published, such as vampire stats or a Kolat keyword, but to be honest, the only thing that could be added to this great book is, well, more pages !! ;-)
I'd honestly love to see a "World of Glorantha" book collating info from G:CotHW, ML, and G:IttHW into a cohesive and useful whole, perhaps with more Homelands and et cetera in a similar format to HQ.
> These are, of course, just a few questions to start you off -- *any*
> constructive commentary is always appreciated.
>
> (But I would suggest that the topic of the cover is probably done to
> death -- yes, it is bright, perhaps garish, and it may not be that
> accurate in Gloranthan or RW terms, but the intent was to show
> continuity with HW and, above all, something eye-catching to draw
> the attention of the kind of customer who hasn't walked into the
> game store already interested in Glorantha.)
Actually, I think that the cover is MUCH nicer in real life than what it looks like on the Internet.
Several non-roleplaying complete strangers have spontaneously told me how good looking they think the book is ...
And I agree with them !!
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail