Re: FOUNDATION: Numbers at the Siege

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:35:44 -0000

> Yes, we should leave plenty of room for individual GMs. Might we use
> Martin's listing to describe units who *could* be there though?

I think that while a succinct list of potential regiments is great, as an idea evoker for GMs, we could perhaps go a little farther, and nest some units in the narrative. I don't mean many, but there are enough units at Whitewall in Martin's 1622 estimate and Donald's 'nos. & type' suggestion, that we can enrich the base development without detracting from player and GM opportunities.

I was very happy to note that Martin's list had such Dragon Pass stalwarts as a regiment of Thunder Delta Slingers... surely we could write *those* in without a problem, as there are enough of them dotted round, and they're embedded in Glorantha :)

Likewise the Doblian Dogeaters... highly evocative images of troops armed with sickle-like rhomphaias, well-illustrated by Angelo (as the Thunder Deltas) and great stuff. Otherwise one might like to leave description in the narrative itself vague, perhaps referring simply to 'Stonewall Phalanx', etc.

I think we can easily cover all bases here: placing possible brief lists for those that wish them for suggestions or a comprehensive order of battle; defining some so that we can enrich the millieu, and produce a more evocative whole in development; while still leaving many options open for players and narrators.

I know the argument exists that if you don't agree with things you can always change them (YGWV afterall), but I'm sure that many of us know people (even ourselves) that get these little quailing thoughts or worries when we feel we're going up against someting 'as written'. :)



Powered by hypermail