I think that new people really need keywords and their 'contents' to have an idea of where to start. I think they need strong caveats of the type: write down the keyword and only add abilities when you bring them into stories.
I think there is a danger that we old hands could see the ability lists as unnecessary when newer people might find them necessary.
This is not to say that I think we can't play Glorantha without this help; I do think that pulling abilities, resistances and other key-words out of published prose is probably a far better encouragement of narrative play.
Case in point: HQ2 gives clear rules that constrain the use of augments. These rules frown heavily (imo) on broad abilities. These guidelines are (in brief, with explanations snipped out): "In order to work, an augment attempt must be entertaining and memorable, the narrator decides whether your description is entertaining using the following criteria: Is it fresh? Does it illuminate character? Does it create suspense? Does it illicit an excited or emotional response?". I think this is a truism: "evocative HQ abilities" are good because they encourage narratives - like augments that fit that bill.
I would like to say that if I agree with Stew over the details of example abilities/Keywords, I do *not* want to see numbers. I know I'm in danger if irritating people by repeating this but HQ2 recommends that you base all resistances on the heroes' target numbers using the pass/fail cycle - so putting in Razakark's Mace skill would be a disastrous introduction of confusion at such a delicate stage of the game system's evolution. (Like that troubling Griffin on page 110.)
Cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stewart Stansfield
For myself, I would like to see these HQ keywords and abilities--these brief, focused, funny concentrations of authors' ideas--front and centre in future supplements.
Powered by hypermail