Re: Digest Number 129

From: Clay Luther <claycle_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:23:28 -0500


hw-rules_at_egroups.com wrote:

Lot's of replies...

> From: "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Hshuschen-esque Spirits/Totems
>
> > I decided to treat the character as an spirit-talker "holy person"
> > (Keywords: Heortling, Spirit-Talker, Telmor), and have him have a
> > Telmori spirit ally and assume that the character had somehow over time
> > learned about Telmor so he could direct some worship towards that
> > quarter. The rest of the clan thinks he is mad or possessed, but
> > they've never had problems with wolves since adopting him, so they
> > accept him.
>
> I'd probably not have given him either Spirit Talker or Telmor. The Telmori
> aren't Heortling, and I doubt that there is anyone in Heortling society who
> could lead him along the path of Wolfie-ness. If you allowed the Spirit
> talker keyword, I'd have made it Kolat or one of the other "approved"
> Heortling spirit talker traditions (yeah, I *know* they're not out yet).

The player's description was quite explicit on this point (and remember, this player has zero Gloranthan background). His character was 1) a foundling and 2) had a wolf spirit ally, a guardian angel, if you will. He grew up Heortling, but still very connected to this spirit ally and the spirit world in general.

The player never said "He's Telmori" (since he had no idea what Telmori are), but I assumed that the spirit he was talking to was, actually, Telmor or a related spirit. I have not decided if the character is actually Telmori or even Hshuschen.

The character does not, at this time, have the ability to actually shapechange as far as we know.

[Michael Cule adds...]
> Michael Cule
> Instead he is a 'pure' Telmori who has the potential to learn to
> shapeshift but has never done so. He would have been initiated into
> Orlanth but could also have a Wolf-Spirit companion who gives him some
> sort of ability with wolves. If he ever discovered or worked out where
> he came from he would be able to go back and follow the path of his
> people. (Query: Can hunschen (? sp) interbreed with 'normal' humans?)

I met you about half-way here and I like your advice a more than Roderick's; it certainly clarified my thoughts on the character (the player and I realized very quickly he had generated a problem character so we both agreed to revisit the character's actual background and abilities later this week, just scribbling down some numbers so we could get on with play...)

> From: "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Durations of Edges/Bonus, Unrelated Actions, Combat

>
> > 3) On our first night, combat proved quite exhausting for us and a
> > little tedious. First, let's talk about the tediousness. Because the

> As the book states, when it starts to drag you can make "do or die" bids on
> the narrator characters. "he bids all his remaining AP on a lunge, intending
> to skewer you through the heart" - win or lose, someone is probably is hors
> de combat.

Wellllll....actually, the opposition was routinely bidding 2 or 3 times as much as the players. If the opposition won (regardless of whether the result was forfeiture or transfer), this would only make the players MORE cautious. If the players did not lose, they did not become emboldened.

Usually, it would work out something like this. Opposition makes bold maneuver. Opposition fails and foreits or transfers some points. Opposition makes not-so-bold manuever, but wins *big*, getting a transfer back. Repeat.

So, even though the opposition was being quite daring with their AP expenditures (up to 100% of the APs in extreme cases), the *net result* of the combat dragged out.

At one point, I did standard GM handwaving and said "OK [thinking, this is getting dull] you win." just to move things along. The *problem* is that I was *forced* to do the handwaving. The last game I threw my hands up in combat like that was RoleMaster :-).

> > one mighty blow than stab a down opponent through the heart." Even
> > though I tried to explain that you could certainly perform the former
> > action if you wagered enough AP, the player shot back that having only a
> > 60% chance of succeeding greatly discouraged them from taking any such
> > risks (ie, why give your opponent a 40% chance of gaining 14AP!??)
>
> Hm, it sounds from your words that you are Transfering AP when you should be
> simply Forfeiting them - only on a Crit does the winner actually gain AP,
> and in a nearly-even match like you describe that shouldn't be happening
> much.

No, we were properly forfeiting and transferring points all night. However, I was fighting an impression the players had that loss meant transfer, not normally forfeiture and transfer in special cases.

>
> "Graphic combat explanations" are really up to the Narrator and the
> players - if you want the game to provide them, Rolemaster will happily
> provide Critical Hit Charts for every conceivable attack form.

Rolemaster...Bleah bleah and more bleah ;-).

> If the player
> wants to chop his opponent's head off, he's got to bid the AP for it and
> describe it. These heroes were fighting really defensively - when the
> opportunity to whack a guy's head off comes along they probably wouldn't
> take it because it was too risky (in character).

Yes, I totally agree and this was something I was trying to explain, but also something that the players -- especially the ones with math brains -- were balking at. The system discourages such action (because of the fear of loss) and does not have any mechanic to generate super-lucky strikes (like roll-ups in other systems). Yes, yes, yes, I KNOW I could sit down and write my own roll-up rules, but...I'm one of those people who sort of says if I pay $50 bucks for a game, why do I have to rewrite it, you know? I mean, it takes enough of my precious free time to study the world background. I'd rather learn more about Hshuschen beast folk mythology than write critical tables.

One player said it this way: "I guess we kind of got...addicted to critical tables" Besides RQ, which arrived at graphic combat results quickly, we also played a lot of WFRP, which likewise has detailed, but easily arrived at combat results. The players just sort of got used to "I roll to hit, big damage!, canned, but interesting, critical result." I think they realize as a group that HW is a totally different beast, but they are not convinced yet if it is a *better* beast.  

> It sounds like a disconnect between the RQ/CoC style of play and dice
> mechanics and the HW style. In RQ you didn't have much to do describing your
> actions - you let the dice do it for you ("I hit" "He fails his parry" "Okay
> I hit him in the... head for...6 points" "his helmet absorbs most of it").

Oh, exactly! And realize that half of my players have never played anything else but RQ/CoC or WFRP.

> In HW you need to describe what you plan to do ("I'm going to take his head
> off with this shot...14 AP") and then see if the dice are kind ("okay, You

Well, don't you mean "I'm going to *try* to take his head off..." ;-)

The complaint that one player voiced strongly during combat was that he didn't feel like there were any *important* injuries during combat. Well, I said, you *can* deliver an important injury by trading 7AP and getting a wound on your opponent. Oh, he says, but that would be risky!

So, see, I think my players quickly understood the statistics of the game and followed their natures to very conservative AP actions. This resulted in dozens of small successes, despite my efforts to have the opposition become more and more maniacal in their attacks, and thus, an exhausting combat. Do you quite see my point yet, because I felt in your initial reply you didn't.

> And I've
> > discussed the session *at length* with two of the players who have a
> > good grasp of the rules and mathematics. They have some very
> > interesting points about how the HW rules actually *discourage* bold and
> > cinematic action because of the riskiness of APs. Since my players have
> > always been cautious, tactical types (they are excellent CoC
> > investigators), they are afraid that HW combats will be very, very dull
> > affairs for us.
>
> Well, you could try not killing downed heros as a normal course of action -

Well, as a GM historically I have always avoided killing downed heroes as a normal course of action. Ransom, imprisonment, overconfident villains, and slavery have been in my toolkit for a long time. This was not my point, however...or I should say, this was not my *players'* points. I think they honestly felt "constrained" by the extended action system; I don't know how to say it another way.

> Also try having contests that don't require death as a possible outcome -
> ease them out of the "death is an inevitable consequence of conflict"
> mentality.

Hmmmm...did I sound like such a neophyte? Most of my points came from post-game round-table analysis of specific effects in the extended action rules and questions or opinions my players wanted answered or discussed in general terms.

[and then Alex picks up the same thread]

> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Durations of Edges/Bonus, Unrelated Actions, Combat
>
> This is a concern I definitely share. It's hard to get players
> to bid high just by 'motivational techniques': the game gives
> them a 'perverse incentive' to bid low, in particular if they have

You know, 'perverse incentive' is almost exactly how one player described it. And speaking of blowing HPs...this is something they are ***extremely*** loathe to do.

> at least a marginal advantage, and aren't planning on blowing lots
> of HPs. It would be better if the game encouraged them to bid
> higher, or was at least more neutral in that respect. This is
> tweakable, but it requires work...

Well, we figger'd out with our pretty little heads that the game encourages you to seek out edges like crazy. However, it then discourages you from using them in media res because you may have to forfeit your wager for an Unrelated Action...so, unless you can stack all your edges up beforehand or the GM is a tea-cozy, you're sort of...screwed.

> > As a group, they found the idea of
> > whittling an opponent to "Dazed", then being forced to take the risk
> > action of a coup de grace to actually kill the opponent somewhat
> > distasteful. To paraphrase one player, "I'd rather chop his head off in
> > one mighty blow than stab a down opponent through the heart."
>
> I have mixed feelings on this one. HW implicitly assumes that
> combat isn't especially lethal, _and_ that both sides are not
> unlikely to take prisoners and such, which is indeed a common

I fully understand and admire the attempt to mimic, say, the light sabre duel in The Phantom Menace. After all, you can easily see that this is a perfect example of an exchange of advantages and blows until one character makes a terrific, all-out-blow, succeeds, and completely destroys his opponent. I do not argue that HW is imminently capable of handling this sort of combat. I fear, however, that simply due to the nature of my friends natural carefulness as a group, we will NOT see this kind of result unless it is, sadly, a player-character being chopped in half by a opponent because, in order to pump up the danger in combat, I am forced to have all the NPCs wager APs like berserkers.

> OTOH, I
> find it personally annoying for players to look for 'tasteful'
> ways of offing opponents; he's just as dead, and the head-chopper
> is still just as responsible, whether or not he was 'down', merely
> 'dazed', or attempting to remove your own head.

I have to admit, I sort of looked at the player who said this for a minute before I actually *understood* what he was saying. From a purely primal point of view, if you look at RPGs as a method to experience extreme violence in a safe and satisfying way, it is much more visceral to suddenly strike a foe down by removing a limb or severing the spinal cord in a particularly bloody and spectacular manner than to knock him on his butt and then "casually" stick him in the heart.

Although, I think the latter is actually more realistic, the player's point was that, in this case, realism is not as satisfying as the hyper-violent fantasy.

--
Clay
claycle_at_...

Powered by hypermail