From: Erik Sieurin (BV9521@utb.hb.se)
Date: Wed 10 Jul 1996 - 19:01:35 EEST
Nils of Weinander:
> The mystical capabilities are cool, but IMO they should be played up
> more. The older treatment (RQ2) holds more sense of wonder for me at
> least.
Now, I haven't read the old treatment, but MY sense of wonder gets
mighty muddled when EVERYTHING is magical/mysterious.
Just as a sidenote, what happened to people who wore metal jewelry
under the old system? Now, if the metal must be REALLY pure, no
problem, since pure silver and gold makes for bad jewelry, but what
if not? Couldn't I toss Disruptions at the Bad Guys if I wore, say,
a silver ring? What about the guilders in my pocket?!
> As far as I have read the main advantage of iron weapons over their
> bronze counterparts is that they keep their edge a lot longer. A
> bronze sword got quite dull after a few armour hits according to
> this theory (fact?). On the other hand, real world bronze doesn't
> rust. The oxide gives a protective layer which stops the corrosion
> from going deeper, in contrast to the porous iron rust.
Uhm, according to what I read (Encyclopedia Britannica, I think)
bronze held a BETTER edge than iron, being harder. However, bronze
weapons also were much more brittle. Steel both keeps an edge and is
resilient, and thus has the best of both words.
> Gloranthan bronze OTOH can have whatever properties we need it to have.
> IMG it can be enchanted in various ways if you just know how.
(very cool Vorumai enchantment effects deleted)
Sidenote: If you call it "bronze", why then deny similarities to
earthly bronze? Nevermind, I get the idea.
Erik Sieurin
PS: Kudos to Jeff Richard for his Clan Varmand descriptions, BTW.
I'll save them. DS.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:51:26 EEST