>But only part of it, as I personnaly believe that mundane "skills"
>don't become
>"magical" just by being increased in an "everyday" manner.
I agree. I've said several times that "everyday" experience don't allow you to raise your ability to extraordinary.
> > If, OTOH, your first mastery represents a step into the extraordinary
>> (i may be a bit odd, but i interpret a 1-point increment in HW as
>> equal to 5 percentiles in RQ; hence 1w equals 105%) then i have no
>> problem with humans outrunning horses, since at those levels the
>> mundane ability has ceased to be 'mundane' in any meaningful sense of
>> the term.
>
>First, having 105% in a skill was not "heroic" in any sense in RQ.
>There were 27 Rune Levels in Pavis
And Rune Level isn't Heroic?
>And you did _not_ see people outrunning zebras or leaping over walls
>without powerful and visible magic. Second, in RQ, you could have
>200% in running
>and still get beaten by a horse in a flat out race (without magic)
>because his MOV
>was greater than yours. This meant that mundane and magical training
>were very much
>separate,
We also know that RQ was a bad vehicle for portraying Glorantha, especially when it comes to Heroic capabilities. Why didn't we not see people outrunning zebras or leaping over walls without magic? Because that wasn't even thinkable with RQ rules.
>the way they still seem to be in HW (see my other posts on the subject).
And i disagree with that. If you have the feat "Run Fast" rated at 5w and your opponent has the mundane ability "Run Fast" at 5w, then both of you are equally fast.
>Third, the usual conversion rate (the only one I've seen discussed
>around here) does
>not equate 1 HW point to 5 %. The ratio and the base are quite different.
That's because people usually compare RQ rolls with HW extended contests which isn't exactly a fair comparison, since extended contests isn't comparable to anything in RQ. If you create a conversion rate it should be based on ability tests and simple contest.
>So far, you are the only person I've heard from that says that
>Masteries are steps
>into the extraordinary.
You haven't been listening, then.
>Starting characters would start by being extraordinary in
>three attributes !
As i've said earlier, starting characters shouldn't have any masteries.
>By saying that you only have to raise your skills to get
>magical-like effects, you
>acomplish two things (both of them bad in my opinion)
As i've said, to raise your abilities to extraordinary levels you first have to perform the extraordinary. If you want to be fast enough to outrun horses, you have to, say, outrun Sun Stallion on the Heroplane. You feel that that must result in a magical ability, otherwise it isn't mythical enough. I feel that it is even more mythical if you can raise your mundane ability into an extraordinary one.
>: you diminish the importance
>of the myth and the cultural links and you get a "super-hero" world
>where people
>accomplish incredible things everyday, thereby diminishing the
>impact of the magic
>and creating (if you are not incredibly careful) a great number of
>inconsistencies.
This seems to be a wilful misinterpretation of what i think, so i won't bother to comment on this. Suffice to say that i don't want (and don't play in) a un-mythical and superheroic world, and that it isn't not a consequence of what i have been saying.
I think HW is a very good game, don't think i don't. But much of the disagreements here are caused by Greg's illbegotten and untested brainfart to make multiple masteries as common as confetti, and which was railroaded into HW. We playtesters told him it was a Bad Idea, but he didn't listen. The earlier frequency of masteries was playtested and well balanced, and it is that which i use.
The 'normal' human range was 1-20, with a mastery being awesome and extraordinary. Now it seems the normal human range is 1-19ww, which severly dilutes the value of masteries. Everyone and his dog has several, and if you don't have a mastery, you are a trollkin.
I won't say any more on this topic, lest people think i'm a whining good-old-days grognard.
-- - Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
Powered by hypermail