Before I am buried under a wave of suggestions of 'rubbishness' and 'slamming' from Simon and Wesley, I have to say that I do LIKE Hero Wars! ;-)
All that I was trying to do was think through some of the points which might be raised if the game is released. I am not critiquing for the sake of it, I am trying to ask for peoples opinions on some (in my own point of view) loopholes of the game.
> From: Alain.RAMEAU_at_total.com (Alain RAMEAU)
>
> ?? I thought that in HW, like in Pendragon, the higher skill you
> have,
> the better you are, and the roll must be under that skill level
> to
> succeed, the higher roll winning in case of tie !!
No the lower the skill the better. You must roll equal or over this value to succeed. A one is always a fumble and a twenty is always a critical.
> From: Simon Hibbs <simonh_at_msi-uk.com>
> I sympathise with this criticism, but I think it can be circumvented.
> I
> don't think the action point mechanism is any more grievously
> mechanical
> than hit points, MPs, armour points, strike ranks, etc. Once players
> become familiar with the system to the point where they have an
> intuitive feel for bidding I think they will naturaly slip back into
> roleplaying their characters and being descriptive again.
Fair enough. The players and myself were unused to this round by round style of roleplaying.
> >If Robin is trying to model TV/book fiction how could the system
> handle
> a >disgruntled (inexperienced) wife who simply plunges her fish knife
> into >her husbands belly and kills him in one shot?
>
> Obviously she got bonuses on her success roll for being armed and
> surprising him, and she got a much better success than him for trebble
>
> or quadruple the action point exchange. In fact, a houswife
> successfuly
> killing him in one stab is rather unlikely. She's much more likely to
> have to chase him round a bit and inflict a series of nasty wounds on
>
> him. If she fails her first roll he might well be able to grab her
> arm,
> disarm her or even throw her to the ground. HW would have no trouble
> simulating this kind of situation.
A fine description! I am in favour of simple actions being very lethal. With surprise I would probably bump up the success level by one or two to simulate how easy it is to kill somebody with a knife.
> >8) In a similar vein, major NPC's shouldn't bother throwing chaff
> >(weaker warriors, debaters etc.) at the players to soften them up,
> because >in fact all that they are doing is bumping up the players
> action points and >making them stronger, rather than weaker.
>
> Action points are not carried over between conflicts, which is
> evidently
> the case here if waves of warriors are being sent in. Each time they
> would be reset to their starting totals. I'd realy much rather field
> criticisms of the actual rules, rather than missconceptions of them.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough. In the mandatory Xena example, there are usually several waves of chaff before the big baddie makes his attack, and I would tend to see this as still being the same combat. The heroes haven't really had time to rest and recuperate, so I wouldn't reset their action points. Especially if some of the players were still dealing with the remaining chaff. I don't think this is a misconception. Its a question about the application of the rules.
> >9) Because every conflict uses the same system resolution I think
> that
> >there will be very little difference in the 'feel' of the magic
> systems.
>
> You could say exactly the same of skills in runequest, they're all
> just
> percentagees after all. It does seem that many of the magical keywords
>
> for the different cultures will be distinctive. The writeups of the
> magical effects in the playtest were practicaly nonexistent, and if
> there had been more info I wouldn't have had any time to read it
> anyway.
Very true. Everything in RQ is just a series of percentages. But I still experience a feeling of difference between them because of the underlying rules of how these skills are applied. In Hero Wars the underlying rule for everything will be the same, so I am worried that this will remove my 'illusionary' feeling of difference. ;-)
> These wild lashings out against a five-page version of a beta version
> of a
> game system are starting to get on my wick. For example, Pete Nash
> lists 9
> critical points, nearly all of which are complete rubbish because they
> are
> based on experience of 2% (albeit the 2 most important %) of the game
> system. It contained no refereeing guidelines or rules options.
There's no need for this. I am not lashing out, and I will be a firm supporter of the new game when its released. I am just trying to discuss what little bugs I thought I had found and whether anyone else either agreed with me, or could point out what I was doing wrong. <my hands are raised in peaceful gestures>
> Can we keep this list Gloranthan, please? If Robin wanted to set up a
> Hero
> Wars discussion list, it would be easy enough to do. He hasn't.
>
> OK, you played it at Convulsion, and were invited to comment - so
> email
> Robin with your comments, but please don't slander Hero Wars in
> public.
Other people are interested in the new game, and other play testers have felt the need to discuss it in open forum. To be honest I think the whole thread will disappear in a week or so anyway.
I think this is a good way of letting Robin know what our collective thoughts on his system are, now that we've had a week or two to maunder over our experiences. I wrote a good list of constructive comments after the play test, but it took a few days to come up with adequate explanations of some other points.
This is not slander. I am trying to be helpful! ;-)
> None of the criticisms I have seen are unfixable. All of them I
> believe
> can and will be addressed. Furthermore I don't realy see what this
> discussion is gaining anybody. Nobody has all the answers because
> nobody
> has seen the final draft of the game - not even Robin!
And I hope that some of what we all write will help him with the final draft. Even if it is just more explanations on how to apply the system to certain situations.
> From: "Jane Williams" <jane_at_williams.nildram.co.uk>
> > Do you realy think that Xena Warrior Princes would be a better
> programme if
> > every time she got in a fight she got maimed or mutilated and had to
> be healed ..?
> Yes. At least, she should get bruised, cut up, and possibly lose a
> fight due to limping
> after a fleeing opponent. I'd be a lot happier if she started using
> her sword instead
> of kicking people, and stopped doing irrelevant back-flips in
> mid-fight, but that's
> another story.
I agree with Jane totally. The polarized win or lose doesn't appeal to me. I would like to see damage to both sides in a fight.
> Back to the point: if a lucky hit from your opponent takes out your
> sword-arm, you
> can hold them off, heroically, with a dagger. But only if you know it
> was your sword-
> arm that got hit. What I've heard of HW makes it sound as if all you
> know is how
> many Points you've got. Boring! So I hope what I've heard is wrong.
This is where your excellent roleplaying comes in! It is up to the GM to translate those action point loses into a realistic description. This can be quite a strain on the GM though and its very subjective! One of my points was that more inexperienced role players will not like this or just treat it as a bidding game.
> I was not going to get involved in these discussions about HW as most
> of =
> the people slamming the game so hard have never seen it or have only
> seen =
> cut down con versions, but the harping about plot points is starting
> to =
> bug me (I am not singling this gentleman out for slagging but his
> comments =
> are the best put together and easiest to respond to).
No problem! I spent days trying to bash it into shape! ;-)
> think up any more fresh ideas for each round. Even in combat this
> would
> become a problem if two characters had reserves of hundreds of action
> points
> (which can happen very quickly).
> <<<
>
> Harrek the Berserk might have 120 action points. How do you figure
> that =
> two character can have hundreds?
If you have two parties of five members each, and during a contest both sides lose four, then it means that the final characters will have the accumulated points of all the others who went down, lost the argument, etc. The resolution table doesn't only allow action points to be transferred from loser to winner, it can also create new action points too. So in this way a single character can build up a very large reserve in the course one a single conflict, as in fact we saw several times in the demo games. Opps, I'm sorry I didn't explain this situation more clearly.
> where the PC can bet all or nothing bids to kill each NPC without
> worrying
> about loosing. Very quickly one character can defeat an entire
> regiment...
> <<<
>
> Plot points are given at 1 per session and 1 if you roll exactly what
> you =
> need to succeed. So, the average PC is going to get 2 per session.
> These =
> points are needed to improve your character. I don't know about you
> or =
> your PCs but if I have a choice of hack'n'slashing my way through an =
>
> entire regiment (with my 2 plot points) or actually thinking my way =
> through it and using those plot points to improve my storm magic and
> mass =
> combat skills I will improve my skills. Yes I am going to keep a few
> =
> points as back-up so that I can save my bacon if I'm deep on a HQ and
> =
> really can't afford to lose that die roll but using it for something
> like =
> fighting a regiment single handedly is silly.
I agree with you there entirely. I was just trying to point out a potential loophole. Most players will horde their plot points for future growth. But just imagine if the set piece situation which you as the GM had set-up could be blown away by a single character going plot point hyper...
Sitting at the fall of Whitewall the PC's see the crimson bat coming. Everyone else sensibly runs away, but you have one PC who decides enough is enough. He bets his own total destruction (say 2000 action points) against the bat and uses his plot points to win the single round of the contest. He wins. The bat is destroyed, and suddenly Whitewall is saved by a single superhuman character with 2000+ action points routing the Lunar army off the field, and the campaign plot line is buggered.
I not saying it will happen. I just pointing out that it could. ;-) In fact it might be fun...
That's enough for me. I will retire gracefully.
Pete (and his split personality the Pharaoh)
Powered by hypermail