I first saw Robin Laws about a quarter of the way through the first seminar he gave Saturday morning, so I can't comment much on the planned schedule or what the final format of Hero Wars will be like. This is Chaosium, after all. They probably won't know themselves till they send it to the printer.
The major point that Robin made during the seminar was (as I saw it, anyway) was that the goal of the rules was to simulate stories, not reality. During the discussion, he drew on metaphors of TV, movies and characters in a novel to explain how the rules worked. He drew a distinction between the 'simulationist' approach to game design, and his own, which sought to represent stories, not any model of reality.
It was in this spirit that the design was approached. I didn't have any epiphanies during his presentation: ever since Laws had been announced as the designer, I had basically known what to expect, give his design of Feng Shui.
Afterwards, I was told to show up in the afternoon, so that I and the others who had signed up to GM demos would be run through it by Robin himself. Then, on Sunday afternoon, we would run teams through the round.
Now the funny thing is, there were slots in the program for the running of the demo on Saturday afternoon. I don't know who GMed or played in these, or even if they took place. I recall David Dunham saying:
>And if the Hero Wars sessions were anything like the one I ran, where half
>the participants weren't up on Glorantha, but liked the game system and
>were eager to buy background books, the con served its purpose.
so perhaps this is when it happened. If so, I would love to see a report on these, since I have to assume that they were run by individuals who had previous exposure to the rules.
Anyway, after some confusion and dithering, five other individuals and myself (I believe their names were Will, Paul, Donald and two other guys whose name I have egregiously forgotten) sat down and were GMed by Robin. The scenario itself is structured as a teaching aid, so that you are introduced to rules concepts one at a time, as the story unfolds.
Robin strikes me as a GM with an exceedingly dry wit. In that respect, the scenario was very entertaining, but most of us were concentrating on learning the rules, unfortunately. Any more than that would be telling, I'm afraid.
That night I read the scenario over, and tried to set up some record sheets, name tags and whatnot for the next day (note to the Wyndham hotel: get some damn note cards in the gift shop).
The next morning, Robin had another seminar, where he first concentrated on the magic system by expanding on an address of Greg's of the previous day. He talked, in general terms, about the 'four worlds' of Glorantha and the cultural magic systems inspired by the four world-views.
He also talked about what he had learned about Glorantha during the writing of the game, which included some interesting facts about the Orlanthi. These included a myth a about Dangan the Birthing Man, as well as the idea that Orlanthi do not choose their path in life, but rather the idea that they are 'picked' for their life path by the Orlanthi Pantheon.
Finally, right before the demos were scheduled, Greg Stafford gave reading from Harmast Saga, a work in progress. Whoa! What the hell does this have to do with the demo, Doyle?
Trust me, I'm getting there.
For those unfamiliar with Harmastsaga, it is a full blown narrative novel of Glorantha, during the penultimate days of the Gbaji Wars. This is not anything like GROY, Entekosiad, or even KOS. It's a full blown fantasy novel, like you would pick up in Waldenbooks.
I had never been exposed to any thing like this of Greg's before, with the possible exception of the narratives from Cults of Terror or Cults of Prax. It was a bit like listening to the work of a mutant offspring of Joseph Campbell and Robert E. Howard - with an emphasis on the Howard.
The fragment that Greg read was that of an Heroic combat. There were several dangerous men, pitted separately against a prepared Hero, with all his Hero Powers prepared and active.
This guy had the ability to incarnate an ancestor from the Godtime. In addition, he was under the effect of a Hero ritual which boosted his powers significantly, but which inflicted any wounds he took on his supporters, who were channelling their strength through him. On top of this, he was wearing artifact level arms and armour, and knew several Heroic Maneuvers which exploited these weapons to their fullest.
Needless to say, he kicked ass.
I was blown away by the reading because I had not imagined Gloranthan personal combat could be anything like this. Admittedly you don't meet a hero every day, but later on, during a bull session in a bar, one of the SFC guys (again, don't remember the name) asked Greg how often the average Gloranthan sees a combat like the one in the reading.
Greg sez (nonchalantly), "Oh, about once a year."
SFC guy's eyes bug out a little..., but he sez "Oh. OK."
The reason why this is significant is that, because of RQ scaling, I believe we have a somewhat distorted view of combat in Glorantha in general.
Imagine for a moment that RQ the rules are a lens, a lens that allows you view life in Glorantha. Because of the nature of the lens, we get this microscopic view of combat, which is way simulationist. If RQ is a microscope, than Hero Wars (the game rules) is more like telescope. More about this later.
OK, on to the playtest.
There were three groups who played Sunday evening, in a addition, we had at least two observers, of which Charles Domino was in my room.
Four of the players were hard core RQ3 types, and two were gamers with no knowledge of Glorantha. From my perspective, the Glorantha people went out of their way to help the newbies, and I was fairly proud of this fact.
>From this point on let me comment on Charles Domino's report. You should
note that on the rare occasion that Charles' notes are unclear or wrong, I
am to blame, because I was the source for a good portion of his info.
>In the demo most spell casting was handled
>in a very rudimentary fashion or ignored
>altogether.
This is partly because I was confused about the exact rules that were being used for magic in the demo. Simple uses of magic are resolved with a simple roll (Roll >T# on a d20). Combat magic was used like any other combat skill. If I had kept these two principles in mind, some thing would have been a lot clearer to the players
>The game is designed for "high-level" play, not
>beginning characters who are desperately trying to
>survive and scrounge for armor, money, weapons,
>etc. (Robin noted that players could do a RQ III
>campaign to build their characters up and then
>switch to HW at priest/lord level. This was also
>noted, if not favored by those who felt it would
>give the characters more background and "fit" into
>the world.)
I heard more than one old-timer say that they were going to do this. Or that they were going to integrate the rules for social interactions but keep the RQ combat rules.
>A major goal is to make the NON-combat issues have
>as much emphasis in play as the combat
>resolutions. Currently, a simple skirmish of
>little importance might take the entire game
>session, while the critical oration to bring the
>tribe into the rebellion is resolved in a single
>die roll ("Ok, I made my Orate roll." "Fine, the
>tribe arms itself and follows you.") The new
>system is designed to make such events as
>"edge-of-your-seat tense" as the battles. Expect
>paradigm shifts from previous systems--this is
>unlike almost any other you've seen.
The most severe paradigm shift (for most of those I talked to) are the combat rules. Most people are still really married to a simulationist approach, at least when it comes to whacking the bad guy. This is probably because the simulationist approach gives you the illusion that your preparations, tactics and skills have an impact on combat.
I not sure I agree with this sentiment, given the presence of Fumbles and Crits in the RQ system. Nonetheless, if you bring up this point to the simulationists, the usual answer is "Well, that's the way combat sometimes works in the real world. Weird stuff happens." I concede the point, but you hardly ever see such randomness in a story or a novel or a movie, etc...
>There is no
>longer a resistance table, but you do still have
>to make a statement of intent at the beginning of
>the round. :)
That was just me, I'm afraid. Technically, you don't have to make a statement. I used in the demo when I wanted to reign in the players when I thought that they were talking over themselves, and growing confused as a result.
>Simple resolutions invovle one die roll vs. the
>target # by each party (GM and player), then cross
>referencing each result on a matrix. The result
>levels are: Big Success, Success, Failure, Big
>Failure. The larger the disparity in levels of
>success, the greater and more lasting the result.
You should note that a Big Failure and a Big Success are _not_ fumbles and crits. This was brought home to quite clearly when the following situation came up:
The players were about to begin a tense negotiation scene. In order to ratchet up the tension, I had one NPC on the other side whisper in the ear of another NPC. One of the players wanted to listen to what was being said, so I asked for an ability roll.
The player rolled a one. Without thinking, I immediately said that the players heard something really, really insulting. I think my exact words were "We don't need these bozos. Tell 'em to fuck off!" In the RQ paradigm, this would be okay. Screw-ups happen, remember? But the player (understandably) reacted with violence, nearly wrecking the whole scene.
What I should have done was to impose a penalty for using that ability in the future, as Robin had done to me when I rolled a one. But that old RQ training had kicked in, and I nearly screwed the rest of the demo.
>NOTE: I have contradictory notes indicating the
>higher roll wins, not the higher result, as long
>as the winning roll is over the target number, but
>I distinctly recall a simple action resolution
>matrix. Based on the amount of difference
>perhaps? Could someone clarify this?
When you have an Simple Contest with an opponent (whatever the nature of the opponent) Higher result (Success beats Failure, Big Success beat Success) wins. If both have the same result (both have a Success, for example) higher result wins.
>Casting combat enhancement spells and some
>unopposed attacks can be resolved on the simple
>table via an additional die roll.
Specifically, you can dispatch a minor NPC through a Simple combat roll (think Hercules and Xena with all those shmoes being whacked before the combat with the major villain begins)
>Healing seems to be
>resolved through an exchange of AP, facilitated by
>a simple resolution roll.
Incorrect, though I am probably responsible for Charlie's mistake. Healing magic was resolved with a simple roll.
>Actual attack spells
>involve use of the complex resolution system--and
>can therefore backfire!
As happened to me during Robin's session. "Orlanth is angry that I have used his mighty winds for such puny foes, I shall not use them again to I have killed a foe with the might of my arms."
>The contest continues until one character or the
>other is driven to zero or below. The further
>negative the loser is driven, the worse the
>consequences. In combat terms, -49 is death, 0 is
>merely winded. Thus AP (remember, ACTION POINTS,
>not armor points!), represent both a degree of
>advantage in the conflict (be it against an enemy
>knight, a chaos horror, a hostile spirit, or a
>souless meldek), and a sort of hit points.
Robin told us that the way to visualize this was not really as hit points, but rather a measure of the advantage that passes back and forth between two foes. Imagine a famous movie sword fight. The advantage can pass back and forth between the combatants for a long while before somebody takes the final climatic blow.
>Players start the adventure with one Plot Point.
>Further plot points can be earned during action
>resolutions by rolling exactly the T#. A plot
>point can be used to modify the sucess level of
>the die roll (not the roll itself, just the
>level), or it can be saved until the end of the
>adventure. Plot points can be spent between
>adventures to gain new abilities or enhance old
>ones. It is even possible to develop a new
>ability in mid-adventure, then decide later
>whether to keep it, or let it become one of those
>Star Trek one-in-a-million things that never
>happens again (because Gene Rodenberry isn't
>around to keep the script writers consistant!)
>
>Er, anybody played Torg lately? Robin denied any
>knowledge of that game and said other similar ones
>were out there...
More about Plot points
As I understand it scale of the abilities runs like this (note: this may be wrong)
14/10AP 12/12AP 10/14AP
While you can use Plot Points to improve your Abilities, you do _not_ get plot points for completing your adventures! There are no more experience points, Virginia. Once your ability hits 6/18, you can spend a large amount of points to gain a level of Mastery in that Ability. With a level of mastery, your ability resets to 10/20AP. That's correct, you subtract the Target # from 30 with a level of mastery.
In addition, you always expend a plot point free of charge, when you use the ability! That means no more big failures, and damn few Failures. This solves (I think) the problems of scale that so plagued the Super RQ variants of Heroquest. Given enough Plot points you can gain additional levels of Mastery. Thus that big demon does not possess 2000% in claw, but rather "Rending Claw 8/22AP (M)"
> From what I've seen, it will appeal only
>to the most mature, experienced gamemasters and
>players. Further, it has quite a learning curve.
>The mechanics are simple, but the characters/
>world are not.
That's always going to be one of the Big Marketing Dilemmas of Glorantha. Will it play in Peoria?
The only way to answer this question is to get the game to the public and market the hell out of it. I certainly don't know the answer.
>Perhaps it was just my group, but the playtest
>session I sat in on had one new, one semi-new, and
>four experienced players. As I was only an
>observer (I got to sit in when there were more
>sign-ups than spots)
Charles is just being modest. At one point he was a gaping prisoner, and for a simulationist, he played the role fairly well.
>, I sat back during the game
>and most of the bull session afterwards. The
>newbie (in his 20's?) was lost and had to be
>prompted about the role and knowledge of a
>"lawgiver," one player really used the cult
>abilities very well, one fumbled around trying too
>but was hampered by the state of the magic rules,
>and the others played their character notes well
>but didn't really _use_ the world/system.
It was true, that the more you knew about the myths, the more latitude I allowed for magic feats. One player tried to use abilities that were (in RQ terms) powers of her deity's associate gods. I still am not sure if this is possible, but I allowed her to do it anyway, to keep the game moving.
Most of old RQ guys tended to use the magic system as if it was instantly renewable rune-spells. This is not the proper approach to take with the magic system, I believe, but I think we'll get a lot more guidance when the rules are published.
>The oversimplified rules seemed to bother some of the
>players.
As I said, this seemed to have to do with combat, more than anything else.
> I hope that the magic, packages, and
>optional rules will help, but right now it seems
>awfully generic accross the board. The cost of
>simplifying the mechanics was to make every action
>seem the same.
Several people commented on this, but I do think it also true that having abilities explained and expanded with one or two paragraph explanations (as I understand all abilities will have in the rule book) will help this to seem less generic.
>Worse, the very elements that
>would help that problem make the system harder for
>the new player to grasp. By combining the game
>system with the world, it requires a player to
>know a great deal of the world to play and enjoy
>the game!
I think the solution to this is to run your first campaign with new players as Youths, newly initiated into their culture. This allows the slow integration of knowledge and experience of the characters commensurate to the expanding knowledge of the players.
One final comment. In the original version of Griffin Mountain, we are told that no stats were included for the giant, Gonn Orta, because he was beyond the capacities of the PC's to interact with. "Save him for the Hero Wars", we were told. Well, it seems to me that it might be time to break him out...
DWRT
Powered by hypermail