Comments on HQ comments.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_interzone.ucc.ie>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:50:12 +0100 (BST)


Steve Barnes states his agenda:
> Harrek does not "violate the rules", there is no special case for him.
> Anything he did, a PC should be perfectly capable of (potentially) doing.

I agree in principle, though different campaign foci are obviously going to want to have (widely) different interpretations of the size of the "potential" -- and rightly so. The last thing I think a rules system should do is tie down a GM to a particular "scale", more than it can help, and this includes foisting unwanted Harreks onto hapless GMs, just as much as it does forbidding them out of hand.

> I don't care whether the GM believes in Dragon Pass super heroes
> with the Infinity Rune and CF of 20 or the Greg revisionist version,
> where heroes are less powerful than gamers previously had believed.

Are they? I don't think Greg's said this, exactly, just that a CF of 20 and an Infinity Rune aren't necessarily the best models of Gloranthan reality for playing heroes in an RPG. The second is also a bit of an exercise in circular definition. A superhero is someone with access to the Infinity Rune; having access to the Infinity Rune is defined as being a superhero.

> Lets say I have a rune lord candidate, with all 5 cult traits at 16
> ("legendary" status or whatever it is called). His test is an Orlanth
> re-enactment HQ, and has to roll all five traits.

Where do you get this particular mechanic from? It sounds like the one PP uses for _DI_, for which I think it's reasonable, but I wouldn't use it in this context.

> Lastly, if there is always a 5% chance of failing a roll (as in RQ),

(but not as in Pendragon)

> then the chance of making 5 rolls
> is only 77%, no matter how good your traits are.

This is an argument against a particular trait-based mechanic, not against the whole concept. I'd agree that if someone has all five religious traits at 19, then a 77% chance of becoming a RL is probably way too stingy; all traits at 16 should be perfectly fine in most cases, given all the other "convince the examiners" stuff. as per a certain fine article. (Still available at all good David Halls everywhere, I think?)

I can think of a couple of mechanisms off the top of my head that'd correspond roughly to the above intuition, so I'm far from despondant, but I won't bore you all with gory details at this point, as I suspect something considerably more elegant yet is possible.

Good luck,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail