John Machin:
> A lot of the time, I do?
> A lot of heroes WILL be these things because combat is a common form
> of conflict. Some heroes will instead be focused on different forms
> of conflict.
The HeroQuest rules offer the solution of having followers, allowing the character to deal with other issues as well.
A magician employing a fighter as a bodyguard won't upset anyone. A trader or diplomat doing the same, neither.
This doesn't stop the player character to be moderately competent in fighting (or at least avoiding getting hurt), but I find having players whose characters are unable to do anything but fight quite restrictive.
> To my understanding, in Glorantha heroes acquire magical prowess
> regardless of their sphere (peacemakers get magic to help them
> peacemake, revolutionaries get magic to help them revolt, and
> hyper-specialized combat engines get magic to help them in combat).
> It's been suggested that this may be wrong in Greg's Glorantha, but
> even if that is the case I am inclined to keep it for mine. MGMV.
Yes, the Humakti bodyguard follower (wait, can't have that, all Humakti are PCs already - make it a Starkval Orlanthi then) will have some specialized magic for his style of fighting. And he will look to his employer to provide extra helpful stuff when taking the brunt, be it healing, missile or spell support, or additional combat magic.
My use of hero:
> I am sensing a terminological crisis here.
Maybe. I was thinking about known and remembered heroes from Gloranthan myth and history. There are a number of fighter characters among the Heortling heroes, but few are remembered and fewer are worshipped for their fighting prowess.
Heroes are people who solve critical problems and provide new ways of doing things. Killing the dragon next valley might be one such, but shouldn't be the master template.
> I'm not prepared to make statements like "given solution is lame";
> lots of people enjoy those solutions (although I don't especially),
> and its pretty harsh to assume that getting a man the right sword at
> the right time doesn't involve some interesting plans and narration.
That's about what I said. Getting the sword, preparing the stage - that's the heroic action. Using the sword on the dragon is the sort of stuff no self-respecting dragonslayer will fail at...
> I also think that it could be rather fun obliterating the
> Wizard of Oz with superior magic if getting said magic made
> for a great story.
I chose the Oz wizard because he only has stage magic, but we do seem to agree: getting a plan to work is the story. Overcoming the final opposition almost becomes the denouement, at least for most characters involved in getting there.
> The idea that craftiness naturally lends itself to a superior
> story to tell is pretty weird to me.
Craftiness, being true to one's personal virtues, or overcoming one's personal weaknesses do more to a story than a series of combats.
> All this aside though: what of it? My central issue here is
> that I feel that the written materials have lead to a certain
> interpretation of Gloranthan affairs that has been deemed to be
> wrong.
Not sure that "wrong" is the word I would choose. There is no One True Glorantha. Many of the things I do and stand for will be contested (and have been...).
> I want to know why they are wrong, and I want to know how -
> using the rules that we have - they can be right.
Depending on the rules construct you are using, the "wrong" interpretations may still be mostly right, but not sufficient for all eventualities.
On the danger of getting to rulesy, I have some trouble with the concentration guidelines. Is it adequate to use conquered or gifted magic? If the deity in question did accept or use similar magic - regardless of the origin - the answer should be yes. So if there is a story where Orlanth releases a spirit wind from a bag of winds, a devotee may do so without harming his concentration geases.
> YGMV but I'd like to at least know what it is varying
> from. A critical analysis of play-styles doesn't really
> need to come into it, in my opinion.
I think that play styles and what doesn't feel right about portraying Glorantha in a game are very closely related. Rules will influence play styles. Rules obstructing play styles that would better portray Glorantha are the issue here.
A good example is the RuneQuest dilemma of initiates using divine magic (rune magic). The rules suggest that the fastest way to attain priesthood is not to use one's divine magic while it still is one-use. Gloranthan reality would suggest that someone who has used the magic most closely related to the deity ought to be farther on the way to getting into contact with reusable magic than the one with theoretic knowledge only. (This problem was solved with Hero Wars, after lots of add-on suggestions for RuneQuest, but it is a classic how rules can obstruct play styles that make a game Gloranthan.)
Powered by hypermail