From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Fri 11 Jun 1993 - 00:10:50 EEST
This is basically for Carl Fink re: his posting on my Comments so far, but
it may help explain what I was on about, so the rest of you may enjoy it.
Wouldn't bet on it, though...
Hi, Carl:
Thanks for the reply! I'm probably only addressing a few of the points you
raised; I am extremely grateful for all the sections you signed off with
"good point," etc. Nice to have my work appreciated, so I hope you don't
take this as a whinge! I'm going to try to cover the points where I don't
think we quite understand each other yet -- where one of us still thinks
the other's criticism doesn't make sense. OK? Here goes:
GRAMMAR:
> We haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing yet.
That's more or less what Greg said when he sent me the KoS Ms. to check.
He didn't tell me that he wasn't *going* to do it, which is why all the
irritating typoes stayed in. After that, I felt, "most said, soonest
mended": my terrible experience in proofing various Reaching Moon products
has taught me to start insisting on changes as soon as I notice something
is wrong, and not to let up until it's got better. In your case, a simple
WP search-and-replace could clear up all my petty quibbles before the next
draft. I'm only offering this as a suggestion: since you're writing RQ,
you might as well speak RQese all the way through.
SKILL MODIFIERS:
> (POW affects) Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many?
If POW keeps zinging up and down like a yo-yo with every POW gain roll and
Rune Magic sacrifice and Divine Intervention success, *YES*. I know I also
suggested a mechanic for getting rid of this (one of the major problems
with RQ3) -- the "alternate use for Skill Mods" -- but this comment was
written in vacuo, assuming you wanted to keep the rule the way you'd
written it, and pointing out a problem with it. As POW is the most
changeable characteristic, it should influence as few skills as possible
under present Skill Mod rules. Plus, removing it from Knowledge made my
INT*1% base Lore skill suggestion possible and therefore appeared to me to
be a Good Thing. (These things do inter-connect, you know).
RANDOM ORIGIN TABLES:
> Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use in the book
> bother you that much?
No. But why should I passively acquiesce as something I find useless is
grafted onto the game? Like I said, I thought you wanted my opinions...
See further below.
CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES:
> What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style characteristic
> increases?
I'm against them. The 1/6 chance of losing a point of the characteristic
you've just excelled in is alarming to me. Still prefer my method, which
involves no counting of hours or flukey dice rolling. (Characteristic
points are significantly bigger than skill gains, so I don't feel I'm
contradicting myself by wanting a random die-roll for the one but fixed
increases for the other. Though, by apologising for it, I inadvertently
reveal that I do think there's a contradiction. Funny thing,
psychology...)
SKILL GAINS:
> If this really bothers you, abolish fixed increases
Fixed increases were OK when they were *less* than the average die roll:
you knew then that if you took them, in the long run you were cheating
yourself. Making them equal to the average die roll is an unwelcome and
unnecessary change. But my feelings on this are really answered below...
> Why enforce your taste on everyone?
Because I *have* taste?
<g>
No, but seriously, Carl, you are confusing our roles here. You are one of
the coordinators / editors / designers / whoevers for RQ4. Naturally, you
want to consider the opinions of the hypothetical Average Gamer in whatever
you end up producing. But you sent that draft out into the world asking us
for our comments. I understood your consultation exercise to be asking for
my opinion, and not for me to tell you what I think other people might
think about RQ4. So I don't feel I should pussy-foot around providing you
with anodyne, politically correct, non-racist, non-sexist,
positively-vetted comments. Surely, I should tell you what *I* think.
What you do with it is up to you.
DEATH BY STARVATION:
> There was a case in today's newspaper...
And my paper says there's a WWII bomber on the Moon, but I don't think
that's how Sheng Seleris got there <g>. Seriously, though, you can't deny
that, as written, the rules for effects of head wounds do look rather
strange.
FATIGUE AND FUMBLES:
> I think lots of fumbles is (as software designers say) a
> feature, not a bug.
I think it's a bug. So do others. Have you playtested this at all?
MAGIC:
> Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting
> Bladesharp.
Here we disagree profoundly. I can't adequately express how I feel the
difference between the two should be stated; it's just *there*. I believe
to cast a Rune spell you have to invoke your Deity's power, and it comes.
In a rush. That's why Rune magic hits with 100% accuracy on SR 1.
Delaying this because a cast is physically draining (i.e: requires MPs to
back it up) feels like putting the cart before the horse. You are
staggered by what has just happened to you / through you -- you do not need
to work yourself up into a state to cause it to happen. My apologies for
the inadequacy of that explanation: I hope someone else out there can put
it better. (More below).
MANEUVER SKILL:
I'm still not convinced. This skill seems to interfere or interface with
too many other aspects of the combat and skill systems, and they've not yet
been adequately modified to accept it. Maybe next draft will do a better
job. But I still think it's basically one for the hex-map crowd, and you
know I'm agin 'em.
EXOTIC WEAPONS:
> This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take
> them out of the game."
I modified my position later to "Take them off the main list;" you seem to
like the idea of culturally-specific weapons lists, so that's OK. I accept
that some people out there are, indeed, "gung-ho for pandybats" (in the
immortal words of earlier editions), but don't think the atmosphere of the
game is really helped by lumping all these things together on one cultural
mish-mash of a weapons table. Wind Child naginatas should be listed, as
"sword-sticks", when the Wind Children themselves are described -- just
like the Runners' "whip-sticks", the Black Elves' "hesh", and any similar
weapons that may have slipped my mind.
APPEASING SPIRITS:
My comment still stands. The current mechanics make it almost impossible
to appease a spirit, even if you are a shaman giving your all. Please
reconsider your rejection: I'll follow this one up if it persists to the
next draft, giving embarrassing worked examples of what I'm complaining
about (like David Hall in his diatribe on Run skill).
RANDOM SPELL APPARENT EFFECTS TABLE:
Frivolously, <g> (and that's a Large grin). I *approve* of your attitude.
Seriously, though, when would anyone roll for these? "Longhorn the Broo
Shaman reaches into the air, and a" -- whirr, click -- "brown nimbus forms
around his fingers. Then, with a" -- whirr, click -- "slight disturbance
in the air ..." Give us a break!
SPELL NAMES = SPELL EFFECTS?
Yeah. It's not "Gloranthan realism" for a Sword of Humakt to know a spell
> BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha?
that's damn' good at enhancing Spear skills and damage. Else, why not give
all warrior cults "True Weapon" rather than "True (Weapon)" as a Rune
spell, and then trust them only to cast it on appropriate ones? "Slay Pest"
(Disrupt) would still be a general damage-inflicting spell; I only said it
was embarrassing to use it in combat, not ineffective. Proper Humakti,
whose "Wound" (Disrupt) spells open gory gashes in their opponents, would
laugh as the farm-boy "swatted" his opponents...
BEFUDDLE:
> Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the
> victim completely helpless...
It used to. Have you re-read the new definition I was criticising?
RUNEPOWER:
We all love it, and can't see your problem. Optional rule with statutory
Health Warning from the Surgeon General?
PHILOSOPHY OF RUNE MAGIC:
I was talking about RunePower with Greg Stafford and David Cheng at
Convulsion, and something he said made me prick up my ears. Appropriately
enough: we were talking about how David's system gave us Orlanthi access to
all the *fascinating* (but normally completely useless) cultural spells
that most guys don't bother sacrificing for. I mentioned how players could
now have their characters cast Wind Words if they ever found themselves
downwind of a potentially-interesting conversation. Greg grinned, and said
something to the effect of, "Or, what if they were walking past and just
*happened* to overhear the words carried on the wind?" (simultaneously
losing a point of RunePower). After all, that's what happened to Orlanth.
He just *heard* these things -- he didn't have to strain to do so.
Now, that's obviously going to take a *lot* of work to turn into a game
system, and I wouldn't advise you to try just yet. It does, however, seem
to militate against Rune Magic = conscious exercise of spell effects taught
by God, and towards a more free-form, storytelling style of gaming -- like
that fostered by RunePower.
Hey, before we have to step over your dead body, why not ask Greg what he
thinks of RunePower? He recommended it to us, after all, as being a neat
rule that made Glorantha work more as he thought it should...
BARGAIN:
A con man is misrepresenting his side of the Bargain. The bargainee won't
take a loss if he perceives it as such. Nobody would accept a bargain if
they knew that they weren't going to get paid the agreed price, or receive
the agreed goods. Criticism still stands.
COURTESAN:
Check the Uleria cult description of this skill to find out what it
includes: "verbal enticement, coercive seduction, titillating
entertainment..." are under its umbrella definition. Then ask whether you
only want women to be good at sex in Glorantha.
I *like* your suggested skill-name of "Swiving," and may steal it for a
still-far-distant Lodrili game...
TERRAIN:
Valind's Glacier is in the Hero Plane / Outer World, no? And who would
have a skill in "surviving on the cold mountaintops"? Valindi, or Inorans,
or Hsunchen Yak People from the Shah Shan, perhaps. Nobody else is likely
to bother. I don't think Arctic skills belong in the basic rules... unlike
Desert, Plains, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Mountains, and whatever else was in
the original set (or should have been).
===== not my stuff =====
I hate Charisma too. (Perhaps it's not having any myself that does it).
However, I'm agin it in principle, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it
out of RQ4. Loren's argument that people never look at a man's APP, only a
woman's, may be true among his group but certainly isn't here. Maybe it's
a question of playing style... (I agree that, if I had to axe one of the
RQ characteristics, it would certainly be APP).
SKILL DIFFICULTY:
> When you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill,
> you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10,
> and Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work?
Looks OK to me as a Quick Fix. Still not convinced. Give me time (and a
fresh draft with fewer distracting exotica in it) to think about it. I
think I'd prefer skills to be "Hard" or "Normal," not this somewhat
overwhelming range of possibilities.
SCRIPTS & LANGUAGES:
This is a Good Thing, and I was trying to say something like this when I
burbled on and on about alphabetic and syllabic and symbolic
character-sets. You can probably adapt most scripts to write most
languages: the problem in doing so is finding somebody else who knows the
same combination to read them. At Oxford, people sat Akkadian Cuneiform
prose composition exams armed with pen and paper -- no stylus, no wax or
clay tablet. How depressingly mundane of them...
Anyway, thanks a lot for the feedback; I hope this dialogue has been useful
to at least a couple of people out there.
====
Nick
====
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:41 EEST