I was very down on HeroWars when it was released.  It was, in my opinion, a convoluted implementation of an otherwise simple concept.  HeroQuest changed my opinion dramatically.  There are still elements about the game that annoy me, but I don't think this is a criticism about the game, just my own preference.

One of the game's great strengths is that it alleviates the need to codify background material as game mechanics.  If you have good sources, do some homework, and can present easily digestable background material, you can get up an running very rapidly.  I'm using HeroQuest to run a mythic china/wuxia campaign.  I decided early on that one of the hero's Keywords must be their Zodiac sign, and I completed the entire process of concept and implementation for this Keyword by simply using a dinner mat from a chinese restaurant that explains the nature of each sign.  (Well, I actually took the zodiac table from a computer game that also explained some negative aspects of each sign)  Maybe not the truest or most real interpretation of the Zodiac, but it works for me and this game, besides, this is not going to be a game of historical realism.

But it is so simple, and I'm amazed at how suitable all of my previously unused game material has become.  I have lots of game books, and I am surprised at how adaptable games like D&D 3E can be in a language-driven game like HeroQuest.  Feats suddenly become abilities, and you can use them without having to be concerned about feat-chains, or noodly bits of prerequisites and game balance.

Finally, HQ reminds me of why I got into RPGs in the first place ~ the allure of learning something new, drawing knowledge from real books and history, and expanding my knowledge.  Ah, the excuse to go to the library is alive again ~ something sorely lacking in most RPGs today.

Aside from distilling the bulky magic chapter into something that is a combination of animism and wizardry, I'm cruising along at a great pace.

Anyhoo. . . my questions.

1) About followers.  The game says you can't improve a followers keyword ability.  It's forever stuck at 17.  Is this right?  Sound?  The rules say that a follower is part of the hero, and can be used as if the hero possessed the ability directly.  What if the Relationship to [follower] is improved?  Are replacement followers also improved?  Seems like a follower's keyword should be directly tied to the Relationship, or be improveable.

2) About special equipment.  One of my players is going to run a Peasant Hero, who fights with a magic rice mortar (inspiring picture here: http://library.osu.edu/sites/rarebooks/japan/images/full/09/12.jpg).  We talked about the abilities of the mortar:

Magic Rice Mortar
~ Mash Things
~ Satisfy Hunger
~ Smash Hungry Ghost
~ Keep Working

Question is, how is this item treated as far as abilities and hero point cost?  Is it one ability?  Four seperate abilities?  An affinity?  Magic?  Should she have a relationship with it?  (I kind of like that last one, in a sense a hero must be attuned to magical items of this power)  I heard someone suggest that items could be sidekicks, but I don't think I want the mortar to have too much (or none at all) of a personality.

I had a third question, but I can't remember it right now, maybe a discussion of the above will jog my memory.

Thanks.

Hi Hershax,

Welcome to the forge! It sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on HQ already, but I'll take a shot at answering your questions.

1) The rules for followers are a little... restrictive. I have a bunch of followers in my game and I just treat them like any other kind of keyword, allowing players to improve their followers abilities with hero points (or buy new ones) however they see fit. Don't worry about tying in the relationship ability to the keyword or anything like that, just let these kinds of connections be expressed in play through augments and situational bonuses.

2) Don't worry about the 'right' way to represent anything. The correct answer here is that they are all right answers, and you should just do whatever seems appropriate to that particular character and situation. One player might have his magic rice mortar as an ability, another as an affinity or a follower, and yet another as a whole damn keyword. It all depends on how much a part of that characters, um, character the rice mortar is. From the way you have written about this example I would suggest that an affinity with a free relationship ability thrown in is probably the best way to go, but you can always change it later if it doesn't seem to work how you want it to.

Have fun!

Mark

There's a long version to the explanation of the rule about raising follower keywords, but the main point boils down to this: You can't raise any keyword ever.

There simply are no mechanics in the game for doing so, not even your character's keywords. They can start higher, under the rules for Advanced Experience. But the only inkling even that they can increase is in the box labeled "Saga System," which is meant to be optional according to Issaries.

Basically the notion is that keywords serve only the purpose of ensuring that charcters have "everything" that should be in the keyword, and establishing the level at which those abilities start. They're not intended to be super-broad abilities.

That said, I tend use the Saga System or something like it myself. So I would suggest that. But that system intentionally, and I think quite sagely, does not include any rules for spending points to increase keyword levels. Instead, think of the Saga System as retiring the old character, and creating a new character who just happens to look like an older, more experienced version of the original character. The point is that you're simply redesigning the character to fit his new starting situation. As such, that includes having keywords at higher levels.

And, if you're doing that, then no reason why you can't raise up Follower keywords.

Keep in mind, however, that Sidekicks can have their ratings increased. So you can do precisely the same sort of development with them that you do with your hero - there is mechanically no difference (nor, do I believe, should there be). Note also that Retainers you're not supposed to advance at all. I think this makes sense, too, you've not paid enough HP to say that you think that they're important enough. Keeping development down to one hero, and one sidekick is quite sensible in narrowing focus of play. IMO.

I'm not quite as sanguine as Mark about using "any" method to represent something like this. But I do think that, for example, making something like this a sidekick to accomplish what you're doing makes sense. Of course then he can have no other.

When all else fails, there's no reason you can't simply take several abilities linked to one item. You could simply take "Magic Rice Mortar" and each of the underlying abilities as individual abilities.

Personally, however, I think that, if it fits wizardry at all (seems to me it does), that your Magic Rice Mortar is simply a grimoire. With four spells. Heck, put symbols on it, and it's not even a stretch at all.

Mike

soviet wrote:
1) The rules for followers are a little... restrictive. I have a bunch of followers in my game and I just treat them like any other kind of keyword, allowing players to improve their followers abilities with hero points (or buy new ones) however they see fit. Don't worry about tying in the relationship ability to the keyword or anything like that, just let these kinds of connections be expressed in play through augments and situational bonuses.

soviet wrote:
2) Don't worry about the 'right' way to represent anything.

Mike wrote:
There's a long version to the explanation of the rule about raising follower keywords, but the main point boils down to this: You can't raise any keyword ever.

There simply are no mechanics in the game for doing so, not even your character's keywords. They can start higher, under the rules for Advanced Experience. But the only inkling even that they can increase is in the box labeled "Saga System," which is meant to be optional according to Issaries.

Mike wrote:
I'm not quite as sanguine as Mark about using "any" method to represent something like this. But I do think that, for example, making something like this a sidekick to accomplish what you're doing makes sense. Of course then he can have no other.

Mike wrote:
Personally, however, I think that, if it fits wizardry at all (seems to me it does), that your Magic Rice Mortar is simply a grimoire. With four spells. Heck, put symbols on it, and it's not even a stretch at all.

Followers come in two varieties, Retainers and Sidekicks. I think Retainers is what you mean by "non-sidekicks" here. Anyhow, you can have unlimited Retainers (I play a character right now with four individual retainers), but only one side-kick. This is to ensure that the hero is not just the core of some group or something. Of course, if you like that idea, then allow change that rule. But, generally, I think it's a good idea.

Yep, relationships to objects are appropriate for anything complex. Not just magic items with the D&D "ego" either. Take for example a non-magic ship. How do people refer to the ship? "She's running a bit slow tonight, Captain." Think about your relationship with your computer (I know I have one with mine). Sure it's imagined, but what difference does that make. You're more or less effective with your computer based on how you feel about it. So, just because it doesn't respond, doesn't mean that taking a relationship with it isn't appropriate.

This can be indicated by the form of the relationship. No, don't take "Respected by Magic Mortar," unless it really does have sentience (in which case consider animism). Take, "Respects Magic Mortar" instead, indicating how the character feels about the thing. Yeah, you could see this as just a personality trait then, but then you wouldn't be allowed to alter the relationship per the rules for doing so. And you're going to want to change that "Respects Magic Mortar" to "Gawdam Magic Mortar" the first time it misfires. :-)

Mike

So it has taken me a long time to read the magic chapter and understand the difference between feats, affinities, spirits, essences.  Well, actually, I didn't even finish the chapter, because it dawned on me that the whole chapter is (rules-wise) unnecessary.  (Your Mileage May Vary)

There are two quirks about magic that sound pervy right off the bat.  (Hope I'm using that term correctly)
1) Magic abilities used against mundane resistances treat the resistance as 14, regardless of what the actual mundane resistance is.
2)  Common magic.  An ability that can only be used for augmentation  (in most circumstances).  It costs twice as much than a mundane ability to improve, but can never be used as a active ability.

Well depending on your world view, the number of of resistances out there that are treated as mundane can vary dramatically.  The animist view informs them that the world is literally teeming with spirits.  Wizards on the otherhand see the world as largely impersonal.  I guess spells costs more HP to improve over charms, but I think HQ is being unnecessarily complex here.

It also dawned on me that the range of "mundane" abilities can range from novice (13) to god-like scores of 4 or more masteries.  If it is possible for a "mundane" ability to reach "supernatural" levels of mastery, then what is magic?

Does magic let you break the rules of the mundane or is magic just abilities that can only interact with the supernatural?  I think it all depends on how seperate the mundane world is from the supernatural world.  In a wuxia setting (and, Glorantha as I had always envisioned it, and been suggested to envision it), what is mundane and what is supernatural is incredibly difficult to seperate.  In Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon people display amazing abilities of running over water, fighting among branches, and balancing on fingers.  Some of these skills arise from intense training, discipline, or magical knowledge.  All of these skills (in the context of the HQ mechanic) are just really high ability scores.

Common magic charms, or "augment-only abilities" can easily be subsumed in the explanation for why a hero has a very high ability rating.  Again, it's based on character concept.  Is my hero a Wu Jen, well versed in Feng Shui, a superstitous Sage who appeases invisible spirits at every course of action, or a peasant who by virtue of carrying sacks of rice for years has developed a back impervious to blunt attacks?

If this is a true assessment of most "magic", which for me it is, then "true magic" (from a rules & cost perspective) should be nothing more than an enabler which allows a hero to do something thay you've decided can't be done with mundane abilities (even if they are very well skilled).  If disembodied spirits can't be seen on the mortal plane then magic like "Spirit Face" or "Wizard Sight" breaks the rule that mortals are blind to spirits.

So for every type of ability that appears on the character sheet, there could be a magic equivalent.  We have skills, and magic skills.  Relationships, and magic relationships.  Followers, sidekicks, and magic followers, and magic sidekicks.  The presence of these aditional magic abilities depends on the nature and inter-relation of the mundane and the supernatural.

I doubt I'm the only person that thinks this.  More likely, someone else thinks this and can present the idea more clearly than I.  I kept at the magic chapter for a long time, trying to make sense of it for my game, not realizing that it is mostly a Glorantha chapter, and not a game mechanics chapter.  With all its terms, varying point costs, and special rules, I finally realized that I couldn't be bothered to learned them when the core mechanic probably works better.

Hey ho Harshax,

the magic chapter…it dawned on me that the whole chapter is (rules-wise) unnecessary

Does magic let you break the rules of the mundane or is magic just abilities that can only interact with the supernatural?

It also dawned on me that the range of "mundane" abilities can range from novice (13) to god-like scores of 4 or more masteries.  If it is possible for a "mundane" ability to reach "supernatural" levels of mastery, then what is magic

I've had the same impression poring over the magic section (just finished recently)--I'm both bewildered by the many variations on "how stuff works" when magic is involved, and wondering if it's really worth mastering this whole new set of rules, when the result doesn't seem to be anything cool like making magic really interesting and cool when compared to mundane abilities, or propelling the story on more dramatically when magic is involved, or anything like that. On the contrary, the result seems to be to make magic an extra hassle to use, and often less useful than regular traits. I'm not necessarily against SOME special rule or rules to govern magic, if they succeed in making magic special in a way that works for the story or the world. I'm just not so sure I like these ones.

Latreya,

Latreya wrote:
Herm, maybe. I think it’s useful to know a few variations in the rules that are introduced in the magic chapter; only one feat in an affinity may be used at any one time (this is useful because many newcomers assume that everything can be mashed together in HQ) for example.

Hi,

Pretty much the differences in magic are designed to support the setting of Glorantha. 

Common magic, which only gives augments, is basically the kind of folklore habits and prayers of the day to day...  For example, when someone sneezes, people will say, "Bless you", which in HQ terms would give a +1 or something to your contest against illness.  This kind of stuff is ingrained into society, and people do it for bits of luck and tradition, but no flashy effects.

The specialized magic is the kind that people expect to see miracles and supernatural effects from.  This ranges from the classic exorcism to summoning spirits to calling giant eagles, etc.  This is also the reason that non-magical stuff gets the 14 resistance... "Samson has 4W10 Strength, but Delilah's Hair Cutting Ritual is 2W5, and against a 14, he can't resist her..."

If you read some of the older setting material, you can see why these two types of magic are both supported, yet kept seperate.  That aside, use it or not, depending on how much you want to follow published Glorantha canon or make your own.

Chris

I was better able to understand how much magic costs, and how it was used, once I clearly defined what magic is.

I started by differentiating mundane abilities, which top our at around 1w3.  Having abilities scores above this implies supernatural aid, skill, charms, or magic.  In otherwords, common magic, being what it is, gets implied in the Ability rating.

Next I determined the nature of the universe, that there are two worlds, very closely intertwined.  The mundane world.  The spirit world.

Magic lets you break a rule of the mundane world (Fly, Breathe Fire) or it allows you to effect the spirit world.  Magic abilities, followers, and sidekicks cost twice the number of hero points to cement and improve.

Here's a little write up of the nature of spirit world entities:
The Spirit World is invisible yet ever present and tangible.  Every child is raised learning how to honor ancestors, appropriate local spirits, pray for protection against angry ghosts, and mistrust oni.  Because the Spirit World and Mortal World are so closely intertwined, concepts such as animism, theism, and wizardry quickly lose distinction.

The world is full of ghosts, spirits, and oni ~ ancestors, hungry ghosts, the spirit of the river, great dragons at the ends of the world, and malevolent demons.

Ghosts are the disembodied spirit of the once living.  Oft times, a ghost lingers because of the nature of their death, failure on the part of relatives to honor their ancestors, or because of an intense need or emotion.  Ghosts inhabit the Mortal World.  Ghosts do not have free will, their thoughts and desires tightly revolve around the circumstances that prevents them from entering the Spirit World.  The ghost of a drowned man would be obsessed with the pain and suffering of their demise, and lamentation that they have not been properly buried.

Spirits can arise and inhabit nearly any object, animal, plant, or geographic feature.  They are generally tied to a place of exquisite beauty or perfect Feng-Shui.  While a spirit possesses free will, their mind and actions are almost always narrowly focused.  A tree spirit thinks like a tree and has needs like a tree.  Spirits live in the Spirit World, but can manifest on the Mortal World and have some interaction with it.

Oni ~ Oni are like a spirits, in that they are denizens of the Spirit World, but they are also individualistic, possess free will, and are not tied to a specific place.  Oni inhabit the Spirit World, but must manifest completely on the Mortal World to interact with it.  Oni may be benevolent or capricious, altruistic or selfish.  Oni are often summoned or bound to the Mortal World by Wu Jen seeking their services ~ a practice that is generally despised by the oni.

And here are my two heroes.  I need some names still . . .  I use the convention of {} to help define a pompous ability in more mundane terms.

First the peasant hero:
Human
Zodiac: Horse 17 (Age 30)
Caste: Peasant 17
Concept: Village Champion 17

Strong Willed 17
Obtuse 17

Knowledgeable of Local Customs & Folklore 19
Drover 17

Maul Combat 17
Bull's Gore & Toss 17
Strong like bull 7W
Throw Big Rocks 17
Surefooted 2W

Relationship with Village Headman 17
Relationship with Magic Maul 13

Magic Rice Maul 17
  Smash Things  2W
  Smash Hungry Ghost 16
  Sustain Me 16

Now the Wu Jen:
Zodiac: Snake (Age 53)
Caste: Hengeyokai (toad)
Concept: Wu-Jen

Foppish 17
Grabby 17

Mistrusted 17
Sense Nearby Spirits 17

Sheltering Bamboo {defensive move w/staff} 16
Relationship with Master 13
Feng Shui 1W  {since all magic requires an understanding of Feng Shui, this ability is mandatory to becoming a student.  It can also be used as an augment for magic ability being used actively}

Relationship with Oni Servants 13

Magic Abilities
Oni Manservant {Magical Follower} 17

Leap of the Pheonix Toad {giganitc jump} 17
Fascinating Fire Flowers {fireworks entrance} 1W
Dryad's Aria {song shatters tree for shrapnel attack} 17

I think you're missing the point, which is not "it is unnecessary to learn the rules, though said rules are still in effect." Rather, Harshax seems to be saying "It's unnecessary to use these rules at all." We are talking about just "mashing everything together" instead, or possibly using different special rules to govern Magic.

Latreya wrote:

I think you're missing the point, which is not "it is unnecessary to learn the rules, though said rules are still in effect." Rather, Harshax seems to be saying "It's unnecessary to use these rules at all." We are talking about just "mashing everything together" instead, or possibly using different special rules to govern Magic.

I think this is exactly my point. You see when you do do this (“We are talking about just "mashing everything together" instead”) you lose a lot of the power of the HQ system. It’s more interesting to discern the subtleties between “Sow Oats” and “Tireless Lover” for example, or “Leap Over Tree” and “Leap Over Obstacle”. This means instead of having an ability called “Jump” for every situation you can have more variety that reflects specific myth and magic.

Sure, go ahead and make your own magic system, all I’m saying is that I see value in the rules tweaks that are there for Glorantha. For example the three ways of Dispelling Magic, surely this would be appropriate for any magic using the HQ system no matter what the setting. Or the fact that Secrets often dramatically change the game rules, like giving a ¼ bonus for augments etc…

Harshax are you saying that you capped mundane abilities (without magic augments) at 1w3 in your game?

Latreya wrote:
Sure, go ahead and make your own magic system, all I’m saying is that I see value in the rules tweaks that are there for Glorantha. For example the three ways of Dispelling Magic, surely this would be appropriate for any magic using the HQ system no matter what the setting. Or the fact that Secrets often dramatically change the game rules, like giving a ¼ bonus for augments etc…

Latreya wrote:
You see when you do do this (“We are talking about just "mashing everything together" instead”) you lose a lot of the power of the HQ system.

Latreya wrote:
It’s more interesting to discern the subtleties between “Sow Oats” and “Tireless Lover” for example, or “Leap Over Tree” and “Leap Over Obstacle”. This means instead of having an ability called “Jump” for every situation you can have more variety that reflects specific myth and magic.

Mike wrote:
Followers come in two varieties, Retainers and Sidekicks. I think Retainers is what you mean by "non-sidekicks" here. Anyhow, you can have unlimited Retainers (I play a character right now with four individual retainers), but only one side-kick. This is to ensure that the hero is not just the core of some group or something. Of course, if you like that idea, then allow change that rule. But, generally, I think it's a good idea.

Never be sorry to disagree. I stand corrected on sidekicks (though I hope I can be forgiven given how the rules are presented). In any case, the restriction on generation is still pertinent for the poster. But thanks for clarifying.

The magic subject is an intensely complicated discussion. First, let's start with what we all agree on:

Firstly, the magic systems presented in the HQ book are all samples. That is, even in Glorantha, there are more systems of magic than the four presented. For example, there is a fifth - Natural Magic - implied in the book and enumerated clearly on the Glorantha site (http://www.glorantha.com/support/natural_magic.html). Coming soon in ILH-2 we'll have Lunar Magic. Oft implied are mysticism (though this could also be part of many other religions and more of a road than a whole magic type), and other sorts of magic. In any case, this is one case where I've asked the designers, and I'm sure that it's the case - the magic chapters are sample forms of magic.

I was supposed to write an article for the site on making new magic keywords, so I did a lot of research on this.

Anyhow, what this means is that you're supposed to, in fact, create your own magic styles. If you have your own world and you create your own magic methods, then you've done nothing but what you're supposed to in HQ.

Secondly, as Ron Edwards first pointed out (FWICT), yep, I agree, you can completely have fun and portray magic just fine using the "just select certain abilities as magic" style. I think that if you're really not into looking too deeply into magic, in fact, that this is probably the best thing to do. For example, given a wuxia game that's supposed to match movies or something, this is cool. Or if you're just the sort of player who's entirely into stats as metagame, and not at all simulative - then by all means discard those parts that Ron calls "cruft" here.

Now, that all said, I am a great apologist for the HQ magic systems. And I've gone on at some length elsewhere about why. But we can do it once more here.

The main advantage to the various forms, IMO, is that they do have a different feel based on the various requirements a character must have to get and use the magic of that form. For instance, to get animist magic one has to befriend spirits. Sure, one could simulate this with the simpler system, saying that such a contest just gets you one or more abilities...but then how different is this than the animism system?

This is an important point, I think. The various magic systems aren't really as complicated as people think. Largely they boil down to "How do I get magic in packages vs How do I get individual magics?" Sure, easy for me to say, given that I've played it a lot. But it's only complicated in relation to the incredible elegance of the rest of the HQ system. To compare it to D20 magic is not at all accurate. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they're limited in number for each system, and actually generally follow their own patterns. To say nothing of the fact that their use is pretty optional. That is, people tend to add on things as they feel the need to do so. So you didn't know that you could have a spirit ally as a concentrated animist? OK, fine, now you know, go get one.

Anyhow, I've had no trouble getting people to understand these things even in chat media.

But, back to the original point, for what is really little more complication, what you get is a feeling about how the magic is obtained and retained. For theism, you get affinities, which are interesting in that you can't use more than one feat from an affinity at a time - the feats are part of the ability, and you can only use the overall ability once. That's interesting because while devotees are flexible, they're also very limited in how much they can do at once. This gives a strong feeling about what the capabilities of an individual of this sort are like.

Adepts (my favorite) learn spells from books. Either with an understanding of the whole work, or the spells individually (or combined). This gives two perspectives on how Adepts learn their magic, and is a fun choice to have to consider in play.

More importantly than just obtaining magic, however, is the question of how the character must behave to use it. Sure, with the simplified system one could rule that certain abilities might go away with "impious" behavior, but I like to have it listed which ability belongs to which spirit, so I know which abilities are unavailable when I piss of which spirit.

Again, sure, you could record this to the side with the simpler system, but now you're back to the complexity level of the system as written.

Anyhow, all taken together, the keywords and magic structures work to give a lot of feel to how magic is obtained and used, and which has lead in lots of cases in play of games I've run to creating interesting thematic decision points. What seems odd about your claim, Harshax, is the idea that somehow all of the extra mechanics somehow detract from the thematic feel of magic. HQ is designed so that when the resolution system meets the keyword structures provided by the samples, that play tends to hit on some very consistent types of themes that are what everyone wants to see in fantasy play. "What do you believe in?" for instance is heightened by the investment in certain magic structures.

This is, I believe, what Latreya is talking about losing if you decide to ditch these extra mechanics. In any case, I find the argument that doing nothing to discriminate between magical methods would be superior to what HQ does if one desires differentiation. And I've played lots of RQ...and RQ is just not very magical at all, IMO. Better than D&D, certainly, but mechanically it doesn't do anything at all really to differentiate (other than in some cases to provide exception mechanics, which you say that you don't want). If you don't believe that appropriate mechanics are important in creating a particular feel in play, then you need to read the System Does Matter essay here on the essay page.

I also have to disagree with Chris and others who have repeated the old chestnut that "HQ magic is just to represent Glorantha." While there may be some bias towards Glorantha, and while I do think that HQ magic does do Glorantha very well, the fact is that Glorantha is just representative of Earth. Oh, sure, it's less earth-ish than Middle Earth or some other worlds, but scrambling geography doesn't change the fact that it's still largely about humans in a world where falling down hurts. Basically to make any RPG interesting, it still has to be something we can relate to. Fantasy games really make very little alterations to earth, except to say "Magic and monsters are real!"

Well, even those monsters are real world monsters. That is dragons, werewolves, trolls, etc, are all real world concepts. Yeah, Norse elves aren't plants. Whatever. The point is that Glorantha has lots of similarities to our world to make it something we can relate to. It's mythology is like ours. And it's magic is like that which we have come to know through literature, and is like that believed in by our ancestors. Like in every fantasy game. Is it a co-incidence that both Glorantha and D&D have wizardry?

Ah, but, you say, "Mike, D&D wizardry and Gloranthan wizadry are very different!" And you're right. Gloranthan wizardry is more like earth wizardry, and that which we read about in books. Theism as presented in HQ is more like the source material by far than "Clerics." Animism works a lot like real world animism, unlike Druids or whathaveyou that are just priests in disguise.

The three presented forms are just Monotheism with shadings? I must be reading that incorrectly. I have no idea what you might mean. From lots of play of HQ, all I can say is that using the rules as written as closely as possible has lead to the most magical play of any fantasy game I've ever played. And it's not remotely "despite" the mechanics, but because of them.

And I don't play in Glorantha. I play in ICE's old Shadow World setting. When I started, I thought to myself, "Mike, you're going to have to do a lot of work to make HQ fit Shadow World." And I did that work (you can find it all posted on this forum). Know what? It was pointless. Because what I didn't really want was to play Rolemaster using HQ resolution. I wanted to play the issues behind Shadow World using the HQ system in full, a system which it turns out has managed to make Shadow World come to life like it never could under Rolemaster, specifically because of the magic systems (it's fascinating how the RM and "Gloranthan" systems map almost perfectly in theme, but how HQ does them all so much better).

So...the system changed my mind. In actual play. That using it as written was a better idea than house-ruling a lot of it. How much more powerful a statement can I make about it's effectiveness in this way?

Now, all that said, is it perfect? No, it's merely the best system for magic that I've seen to date (and I've seen a lot). There are some hitches in getting people to get things like multi-part soul-spirit-essences, etc. I've had players complain that the complexities weren't worthwhile on occasion (Chris?). I have a house rule for concentration. Yeah, even I don't play 100% by the rules. I'm not saying that one shouldn't change it at all.

I do so love magic in RPGs. That's what first attracted me to RPGs, and why I still play fantasy far more than any other form. So, perhaps I'm biased in that I want more complexity where magic is concerned. I want people to fiddle around with the magic rules. I want it to be philosophically complex. Not everyone will want that.

So, again, maybe the simple method is better for those people. But if you really want magical magic, if you want that sense of wonder about magic that makes it so cool...then I can only most heartily recommend trying to put forth the extra effort to learn it.

What's more, if I can be of any assistance to anyone in understanding these things, I love nothing more than to go on at length about such here. Just ask.

(And, when I screw up, correct me).

Mike