OI! Julian, wrong list mate - Immod or HQ-Rules would be better
surely?
And then I'd like to make some comment, if thats ok.
What do you think?
Regards
Rob
- In WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com, "julianlord"
<julian.lord_at_...> wrote:
>
> OK
>
> I have been thinking about this quite hard as, coincidentally, my
> latest attempt to come up with some satisfactory HQ-inspired house
> rules for RQ (using MRQ as a basis) stalled for some months
recently,
> as I basically hit the opposite end of the same problem that Greg
is
> facing - ie how to ensure that the nitty-gritty of RQ can be
tweaked
> so that, mechanically, HQ-type Heroes can become possible and
> playable using RQ mechanics (which I personally prefer to the HQ
> ones, despite the undoubted excellence in game design of HQ).
>
> Now, both systems are meant to illustrate Glorantha, when used as a
> setting, but RQ uses the bottom-up approach, and HQ top-down. Both
> approaches are partially broken, as RQ still fails to depict the
> Heroic levels of Glorantha, whilst HQ fails to depict the mundane
(as
> a game system that is, specifically thematic content and GM/player
> input notwithstanding).
>
> There appears to be some kind of gap though, where RQ as edited
fails
> to illustrate epic scope, and HQ to illustrate the nitty-gritty
that
> was one of the secrets of RQ's success.
>
> But I would like to approach this from the HQ angle, as I
understand
> that Greg's specific problem is how to portray Epic Level NPCs in
HQ
> game supplements...
>
> ---
>
> HeroQuest actually provides a fairly consistent scale of power,
from
> the mundane to the divine, via the heroic.
>
> Looking at HQ:RiG, AR, and BA (ignoring the odd typo in this last
> work), it is clear that levels 1-20 are meant to represent the
> mundane levels of ordinary skill ; 1W-20W is the basic Mastery
level,
> maximum ordinary potential, basic natural superhumanity such as the
> greater strength of bears as compared to humans, etc ; 1W2 and
above
> represent heroic to Epic to divine levels of power, etc
>
> The interesting thing here is that the scale has been, in the
> majority of cases, been directly derived from RuneQuest and from
the
> canon of Gloranthan RQ publications, using the principle that 1
point
> in the HQ scale equals 5% in RQ
>
> But clearly, this derivation fails at the 1W-20W level, and even
more
> so beyond, due to the deep differences between the two game systems.
>
> HOWEVER the scale given in the HQ canon is perfectly coherent,
> useful, and valid --- it is in fact necessary to provide just such
a
> scale as part of the core game design.
>
> I proposed that the character advancement rules be tweaked, so as
to
> better mirror this complex state of affairs :
>
> 1) in order, primarily, to ensure that the Epic level NPCs have
skill
> levels hard to reach by PCs in campaigns run by GMs of varying
styles
>
> 2) also to reinforce consistent portrayal of Glorantha across the
> game systems
>
> I believe that character advancement costs in the 1W-20W range
should
> be doubled ; trebled in the 1W2-20W2 range ; quadrupled in the 1W3-
> 20W3 range ; et cetera
>
> This would solve both my own RQ problem and Greg's HQ question ;
Greg
> could simply keep the existing scale and work with it ; I myself
> could simply use the following cross RQ/HQ scale for my own selfish
> purposes :
>
> 01-100 % / 01-20 / 1HQ point = 5%
> 101-300 % / 1W-20W / 1HQ point = 10%
> 301-600 % / 1W2-20W2 / 1HQ point = 15%
> 601-1000 % / 1W3-20W3 / 1HQ point = 20%
> 1001-1500 % / 1W4-20W4 / 1HQ point = 25%
> et cetera
>
> I know that this is all a bit SuperRuneQuestey, but from experience
I
> know that SRQ is the best system for my personal GM style... that
is,
> I prefer to deal with percentile chances in three figures than with
> the Masteries of HQ.
>
> Whilst I believe that this approach more closely mirrors intended
> power levels in the published canon, I think that most importantly
> the diminishing return for investment is an important part in the
> canonical illustration and representation of the Gloranthan Epic
> style.
>
> Julian Lord
>
> PS & BTW I won't worry too much if these arguments convince no-one
on
> the list... they're just my personal take on the question :-)
>