From: DevinC@aol.com
Date: Thu 26 May 1994 - 03:42:09 EEST
Devin Cutler here:
Joerg writes:
"53 Lightnings instead would incinerate anything,
even a true dragon..."
Really? What do you base this on? 53 lightning is going to do an average of 185.5 hp of damage. Somehow, I think a kilometre log True Dragon is going to way tougher.
Does anyone have any secret info on True Dragons (like Stats)?
Martin Crim writes:
" How can your characters, in the third age, tell whether the
temple is Kolat's, some connected air god's, or some unconnected
air god's? I submit they have no way of knowing for sure, based
on the remnants of the temple"
"But check out the Humakt write-up from TotRM for some reasonable
variations (like the lottery swords)."
Lottery swords are an example not of variation but of addition, of which I have no problem.
" I see no danger of driving people away because of
the existence of a small coterie of hard-core fanatics to whom
Glorantha is more than a gaming world. If people are bored by or
(heaven forfend) intimidated by the Daily, why do they read it?"
Peter writes:
"Someone else asked about the Gagarthi (Chris someone) did he get any
answers?
Not one."
I seem to remmeber that he was anwered. That he was given an explanation of Gagarth and then referred to the TOTRM issue that has a full writeup. Did you miss this?
Nick writes:
" I wonder if your
interest in standardising religions and societies across the world is in
some way connected to the speed with which you move through it? "
Do not be misled by the breadth of the areas mentioned in my campaign. Over 35 Gloranthan years have passed since its inception. My scope may be greater, but the speed is probably similar to many campaigns.
My interest in standardising religions is not an absolute one, it is a reaction to a trend to over-unstandardise that has developed of late. Personally, I would like to see a balance. But since the trend seems to be multiplicity at all costs....I must put on my standardisation helmet and stomp my feet.
"> If Glorantha is not a vehicle to play RQ in, then what exactly is it?
Hmmm... why did nobody ask Greg that, back in '66?"
Certainly, to Greg, Glorantha is something more than RQ, hence its preadting RQ. But for the majority of us, Glorantha came part and parcel with RQ. They were intertwined and, for many of us, inseparable. So, I really don't care that Greg, when he created Glorantha, didn't envision RQ. The fact remains that Glorantha's popularity, indeed the only reason we know about the world at all and are discussing it now, is because of its attachment to games (i.e. RQ, WBRM, and NG). Because of this, Glorantha is, in my mind, primarily a vehicle in which to roleplay. That is how it was introduced to me, that is why I purchased the stuff, and that is why I continue to play in it today.
Alex writes:
"The trouble with a One True Glorantha is that many people may not like it.
If there is inconsistency, it may annoy some people, but if Glorantha
I am not asking "why can't EVERYTHING be consistent?"
I am asking "why does everything have to be inconsistent?"
" And if such did exist, determining which
Age it was built in would require rather a lot of archeological expertise
on the part of the characters, I think."
In any case, maps scribed on stone, dates written on sarcophaggi, et al can establish dates firmly.
In any event, I would be interested in taking this discussion off line with anyone who would like, since I believe we have hashed out about as much as we can on the net. If our offline discussions turn up anything new, I would then post a summary.
Regards,
Devin Cutler
devinc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:38 EEST