Now, I would prefer a world where the rules works differently for sorcery, theism, mysticism and animism. So far, "Glorantha according to HQ" has made me just a little bit frustrated, because I don't see the difference between feats and spells, and between different feats for similar tasks. I mean, who else remembers the difference between Damage Resistance and Protection in HQ. It was huge! It really felt different, and I liked that. But in HQ... it's all just a +2 augment, man.
So, my vote is for greater differentiation, even if it means having to
fiddle a bit more with the bits.
Now, I realise that some of what I would like is already potentially
there in HW. I just need to convince the GM that, on devotee level,
Nathas "Cutting Edge" works like a +2 edge (from the old HW rules),
"Dance Past Blades" is a separate contest that attacks the opponents
attacking target numbers, and "Devastating Riposte" allows a bonus
attack action whenever an opponent fails an attack. (Please don't start
a discussion about these specific examples! That's not where I'm going
with this.) The problem is that we don't want to spend an hour every
game discussing things like this (especially since some of the things I
come up with off the top of my head and which sound reasonably like
what the feat "ought to do", might be disasterously overpowered in
practice) so mostly my GM is going to settle for the old +2 augment,
So pretty near the top of my wishlist in a new edition, is a bunch of
extensive examples of what specific feats or spells can do, in detail.
Just to give an idea what can happen when you leave
straight-augment-land.
Dan Guillou
PS Players who won't study for their rpg-sessions... why should they play in Glorantha?
PSS The thing about playing a low-lvl game in Glorantha, is that some of us have been doing those for almost 20 years. Because, IMO that was pretty much the only thing the RQ rules were really good at.
Powered by hypermail