>Shield Destroyer, Sword Breaker... how do these do what they say
>under the current mechanics? Let the player describe how he will do
>it... NO WAY. I can see my players now... Sword break him, shield
>destroy him, decap him... next! If they dont do what they say what
>is the point of having them? You may just as well say: implement
>augment #1, augment #2, augment #3, next!
Okay lets look at these magics. The basic system here is I declare my intentions, then we throw dice to see whether I succeed. This is the same as every other system I have ever played. So, I (as player) say "I will use my Sword Breaker feat to break his sword". That's my intention. Now we roll some dice - I have a target number, the GM chooses a suitable ability for the opponent to resist my attempt, or to try to do something more dramatic himself. If I succeed, have I broken his sword? Depends - the rules give us levels of success. A complete success, and the sword is useless. A Major and the sword is broken, but still has a just about usable stub of blade left. Minor or marginal and I've damaged the sword, but he's probably still happy to fight with it. If Sword Breaker was used as part of an extended contest, this is modeled by the opponent losing APs. In a simple contest, well you broke his sword, now what?
Sorry, I fail to see the problem here. The rules give you exactly how these skills work - the only bit that you are being left to do is work out whether you will allow the player to use THAT skill to try and achieve THAT objective. If you can't work that out for Sword Breaker, I really can't help you. Sunset Leap is more difficult - it's a colourful name, and could mean (just about) anything. For some of us this is fun - I don't want somebody coming up with a cool idea - "Hey, the setting sun looks to be about twenty feet in the air, so my Sunset Leap feat should allow me to jump over the setting sun, which means that fifteen foot wall should be no problem..." - and have some rules lawyer come out with "but on page 57 of the third HW rule book (Feats & Affinities, Vol.2 Me-Z) it says..."
In short, I wonder if the problem is not that HW is failing to provide what people NEED, but instead failing to meet their EXPECTATIONS. We're all pretty used to buying rpgs which are full of skill lists ("Climbing : This skill allows the character to climb walls, cliffs, trees, etc.") and spells with specific mechanics developed just for them ("and then you throw a d30 and if the result is lower than the armour rating of the opponent's neck, his head comes off.") These really aren't needed. By providing a single mechanic that deals with all skills, magics, etc. HW makes the whole game MORE consistent, EASIER to run, and with LESS re-inventing of the wheel. At least with a little practice.
To those who want the mechanics to deal with the "real" world better, all I can suggest is that you try with a slightly different focus on the rules. First, you need to decide whether a skill can be used for what the player wants to do - that's true of any game system ("Hey, can I use my Computer-3 skill to turn my calculator into a portable encryption device for our comms gear?") Then you have to interpret the result. If you're running an extended contest, that's done for you - the APs go up or down. If a simple contest, you have levels of success - Complete (100%), Major (80%), Minor (40%), Marginal (5%). What that means you have to work out for yourself - that's true of any game system ("The guy loses 7HP...")
HW changes our expectations of what a game system needs to be - but it is just as good at mapping game mechanic on to world reality as ANY system I've ever seen, if you play it that way.
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail