> "Hero Wars" is *not* IMO a game about painstakingly executing fallen
> enemies (or taking care of any other minor details) for fear the
> Narrator will spring a "Final Action" surprise on you if you don't.
Hmm, while some might doubtless play it that way, I got the opposite message from Roderick's description - the majority of the PC's opposition won't be taking Final Actions for the most part (just like the majority won't have Hero Points). The ones that do are likely to be the main villains that the PC's will watch like a hawk (or coup de grace to be certain!) - or the sneaky soon to become recurring villain who will use his Final Action to escape precisely because the PC's do not normally nedd to worry about Final Actions...
> "Hero Wars" is *not* IMO a game where it should ever be a *problem*
>that "the winning side is lax in their security precautions."
Indeed. It is a positive vertue that the winning side is lax in their security precautions - that is what allows the PC's to take their final actions when in other games they would already be dead! Roderick was pointing out that there is a "genre convention" that the people that the Heroes fight tend to be lax in their precautions when winnin, thus allowing the Heroes the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
> Finally, IMO it is *not* "Narratively Good" to require players to
> routinely "take the precaution of administering the coup de grace"
> for fear of being Narrated against if they don't.
I don't think it is any kind of good for the players to "fear being narrated against" - It sounds like they have had the same bad experiences as Jim Chapin!
Powered by hypermail