Re: "Don't mention the gyrda!"

From: donald_at_9R3CJj_b-2tOcJTuZNQQ0naCA3MKeQFCn7GaWWCLjoQGSXf5o55sNdm1cBOQ6nY-8J7J-
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:26:54 GMT

In message <p0624080fc4b02212cb8a_at_[]> David Dunham writes:
>>Whereupon it becomes a matter of how you deal with that line. When
>>I hit it I just switch off and discard that subject as more trouble
>>than it's worth and go on to the next.
>Here I'll revert to the "someone else's problem," but: I know of
>people who didn't play an RPG of their favorite comic because they
>bogged down in the optional rules. So I contend you haven't hit the
>line yet. When you do, the entire thing becomes unusable because you
>can't figure out the parts that interest you.

I guess my experience of 1970s games stands me in good stead here. That's how far I have to go back for games so incomprehensible and unplayable that I give up on them. The original D&D is one of the few, even then, that fits that description.

>>To me the differences
>>between someone who tries to emulate their god, someone who begs
>>or coerces spirits to help them and someone who reads spells from
>>a book or prays to a saint to interceed on their behalf are
>>important and interesting story detail
>The different approaches to magic don't require the theoretical
>background -- what you describe is, well, description. This needs
>only minimal rules support.

We could argue over how much is minimal rules support. However I do see these different approaches as needing distinctive rules or the distinctions will disappear in game. Which would make the Glorantha poorer as a gaming world.

Donald Oddy


Powered by hypermail