>
> But, for a different angle, consider that the character as written
up in RQ
> may simply be "wrong." Rather, RQ is designed in a certain way to get
> certain effects. Like, for instance, there's a strong amount of
"powering
> up" that can occur in RQ, gaining experience over time with skill
checks and
> such. The "problem" with this is that it means that the character is
pretty
> much molded by those gaming priorities.
>
> So here's a different method. Look at the character, and think of
him not as
> he is, but as you'd like the character to be. If you hadn't been
limited by
> RQ in creating it, or if it didn't exist as a RQ character to oppose
PCs,
> then what would it have been coolest for the character to be like?
Oh, sure,
> use the character's ability levels as a rough gague of things like
> experience, if you liike where they're at. But consider even
changing that.
<snip>
I agree wholeheartly with Mike here, and in fact this was the method I employed when converting the NPC 'cast' of my home campaign from RQ to HQ. I found that the whole process opened up and deepened characters that I had been using for years and thought that I reached the end of their gaming life. Also minor characters suddenly became much more fuller, more interesting and subsquently i was less inclined to use them for walk on roles or even cannon fodder.
Regards
;o)Newt
Powered by hypermail