Re: HW Mechanics

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_Brooke_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:47:20 +0100



George has decided to hate "Hero Wars" sight unseen, and asks:

> My main worry here is with action points and the wagering of them.
> What the hell does an action point represent to the character?

The degree of RISK he is prepared to accept in the action he undertakes. Thus, betting a low number of status points is "cautious" (e.g. tentatively holding your ground / posting a polite question to the Digest); betting a large number of status points is "risky" (e.g. a desperate last-ditch flurry / posting an abrasive opinion to the Digest). If you have a high skill, you can afford to bet low and expect to win in the long run; if you have a low skill, your best hope of a quick success may be to bet high and pray.

This seems to me to represent an intuitive human judgement which should be made whenever you engage in a potentially hazardous contest. (HW doesn't waste its time or ours by simulating the outcomes of trivial or non-hazardous contests).

The number of status points wagered does not in itself alter the result of the die roll (that is, success or failure) -- it alters the outcome of the contest for whoever wins or loses. Some of the outcomes on the contest resolution chart cause the number of status points wagered (or a multiple thereof) to be gained, lost, or transferred between contestants. And, after the first round of any contest, the contestants know how many status points their opponents possess and can "place their bets" (George) or decide how much to risk (HW) accordingly.

There is a (non-numeric) relationship between role-playing activities and status point bets: you can't, for instance, have your character (in a legal dispute) call his opponent a broo-fucker and claim that it's only a one-point bet. In unclear cases, the GM and players can agree among themselves what is actually happening -- or the GM can arbitrate based on his perception of the players' willingness to accept risk.

> 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.

Because, like RQ Rune Lords' Divine Intervention (or WB&RM Heroic Escapes), it might allow your players to frag games by virtue of their Gloranthan magical potency? Or are DI/HE rolls OK, but Plot Points not, for some arcane reason?

Plot Points are rather like the similar points (Hero Points, Force Points, Fate Points, and lord knows what else) that many other systems use to allow players some respite from the evils of the uncaring dice (and to allow GMs to reward good play). Most players will have at most a handful of Plot Points. You can spend them for permanent changes to your character's abilities (like experience or training); for use of powerful magics (like one-use Rune spells or Enchantments); or to improve your result on one die roll by one level, once, after the roll (i.e. from failure to success, from big failure to failure). Spending them like currency is not, in the long run, the most efficient thing to do...

> I'd much rather have a character in a world than a character in a
> story

Fortunately, HW caters for both, and better than previous Gloranthan rules (IMO). So you should be able to experience more of the world than ever before, and may even find yourself slipping into stories from time to time -- they're so much easier to write when the f***ing RQ mechanics don't get in the way of every creative idea you come up with!

Nick
:::: web: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Nick_Brooke>


Powered by hypermail