Much of what I have heard regarding Hero Wars has pleased me, but there are a couple of issues that worry me, and might prevent a sizable segment of the role-playing populace from enjoying the game.
One thing that I really like about RuneQuest is that for every
game-mechanic, there is an analogous concept which the character would
understand. Strength is strength. A skill check is a learning experience.
Magic points are personal magical energy. Decisions that the player makes
(should I cast bladesharp before the fight, or save the MPs in case someone
tries to Demoralize me) are very similar to decisions the character makes
(should I expend my magic on calling Humakt's Blessing, or instead defend
against any enemy curses).
Aside from the elegance of this arrangement, it also facilitates a style of role-playing sometimes termed 'immersion' or 'deep in-character'. In this style the player attempts to take on and mimic the mindset of the character, so that character emotions are felt rather than deduced; there are some similarities with what I believe is called 'mask theatre' (for a more in-depth discussion, try to track down John Kim's FAQ for rec.games.frp.advocacy). That the decisions the player must make are analogous to decisions the character will make allows the player to remain immersed in character, rather than having to devote attention to a task which has no easy in-game analog.
What makes this particular style difficult are game mechanics which have no obvious in-game parallel. Consider, for example, the Fortune die in _Feng Shui_. In Feng Shui, tasks are determined by rolling 2d6, one designated as negative and the other positive, and adding the positive to the relevant skill while subtracting the negative, and comparing the result to a difficulty number. In addition, if either die comes up 6, then an additional die of the same type (positive or negative) is rolled and modifies the total appropriately, with additional 6s resulting in additional dice (it works out a lot more simply than it can be explained). So, if you have a Guns of 13 and a target number of 15, and roll a four on the positive die and a five on the negative die, you would up with a total of 12, which means you missed.
However, there is a secondary characteristic called Fortune, which for starting characters ranges anywhere from 1 to 10. Prior to any task check, a player can opt use a point of fortune to roll a fortune die in addition to the regular positive and negative dice, with the number rolled added to the total before comparison to teh target number (whether 6s are rerolled for fortune dice was not made clear in the rules). So, in the above example, if the player had opted to burn a fortune point, he could have rolled an additional positive die, which, if it had come up three or better, would have resulted in a success.
This might seem fine, and the mechanics of Feng Shui are relatively non-intrusive and fluid overall, unlike some other recent games (dice, playing cards, *and* poker chips?). But (you knew this was coming) the use of fortune dice is a player resource management problem *for* *which* *the* *characer* *has* *no* *analog*! If a character has a fortune of 2, say, then the player has to carefully consider *when* to use those fortune dice, since there are only two to use for the entire session. Should I use it now, to cut the Abomination in half with the katana, or save it for later in case the Evil Sorceror tries to fry my brain? Unfortunately, there is no corresponding decision being made by the character. The character doesn't think of luck as a finite resource which has to be saved or spent; luck is just how things tend to break for you. The character's going to do his best to cut the Abomination in half, and his best to keep his brain unfried later on.
So, for the player attempting immersion in the character's frame of mind, dealing with Fortune Dice is distracting and can ultimately detract from the role-playing experience (I don't want to seem to be picking on Feng Shui, here; this type of mechanic appears in lots of games, such as Star Wars, Vampire, ShadowRun, and doubtless countless others). This is why I veiw such mechanics with apprehension.
What does this have to do with Hero Wars? Fear not, if you've stuck with me this far, all is about to be revealed. I haven't been fortunate enough to parrticipate in any of the HW playtest sessions, so all I know is what I read in the digest, and I don't want to come across as prejudging the game; these are just concerns that have arisen in response to discussion on the Digest.
The first, and lesser, concern is with action points, and the wagering thereof. As far as my foggy understanding goes, when there is some contest between two characters, say in fighting to the death or telling off-color jokes at the other's expense, then each character gets some amount of action points depending on their rating in the relevant skill. Then each 'round' of action each character/player puts up some number of action points and rolls against some target number dependant on their skill & the number of action points wagered, and depending on how well/badly each player rolls, each character gains/loses some number of action points, and if they're both still positive, they go at it again, right?
My main worry here is with action points and the wagering of them. What the hell does an action point represent to the character? In RQ, magic points, hit points and even fatigue points had a direct and obvious correspondence with some Gloranthan concept. Is the same true of action points? Do they represent something obvious, or is it just an abstraction of a whole bunch of stuff that has no real Gloranthan equivalent. Beyond that, what about the act of wagering action points? My foremost worry is that this sort of resolution will lend itself extremely well to game theory, and for any situation there will be a single obvious best strategy for each side, and who wins thereafter might just as well be decided by a single percentage roll, with one side winning for 01-x, and the other for x+1-100. Beyond that, what does the wagering of action points correspond to from the character's point-of-view? Can there be an obvious analog with tactics and strategy, for a mechanic used to decide such a wide variety of conflicts, or is it something that the player has to manage from a mindset detached from that of the character? I find this worrisome, but not so worrisome as Plot Points. Dire, indeed.
I have inferred, I hope incorrectly, that Plot Points serve as some
sort of trump card for a player to use to greatly increase the chance of
success with a particular action, and that they are for each player a
limited resource. I would really dislike such a mechanic intensely. As in
Feng Shui's Fortune Dice, we would have a limited resource requiring careful
management which would have *no* equivalent from the character's point of
view. If it is supposed to represent some personal mojo, well, that's not
how mojo works. Having good mojo would make you more successful at
*everything*, *all* of the time. It wouldn't allow you to pick some number
of times a week when you are much more likely to be successful, when the
rest of the time you're just an ordinary schmoe. So, unless there is some
obvious Gloranthan analog that Plot Points are supposed to represent, I fear
I may dislike them intensely (the name 'Plot Point' irks me as well, as I am
one of the many gamers who couldn't care less what sort of story the events
in the campaign would make; I'd much rather have a character in a world than
a character in a story).
- --
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris gharris_at_dur.mindspring.com ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #69
Powered by hypermail