>That particular disgruntled fish-wife sounds a lot like one of my characters.
>Including the non-existant combat skill. I enjoy playing her, a lot. Look, not
>all of us want to start off as Heros, OK?
In that case, I would play this single murder out on her - possibly mastered once or twice - ability "hate husband" rather than "fish knife attack". Including an all out use of action points...
My character in the HW playtest (the Vingan) had a very strange ability "box given to you by your sister" 8/12, and Simon's Storm Voice had "burly" as one of his prime abilities at 6/14. While I still find this concept not very intuitive, I see no problem with building up a sort of "practically applicable passion", to use Pendragonish terms. Specify a victim, and gain an advantage against this victim only at a low cost. This could be how curses might work out, too (sort of "off the fly" abilities to be paid for with plot points or so).
>if they're no longer anchored to reality, why bother playing them?
In that case, I suppose you should include a "down to the earth" ability in your character write-up.
>What I want is a character generation system that will work for all NPCs as
>well as for PCs (since there's no difference other than who runs them today),
Write up up to 100 words about them fits my bill nicely. That's how I've refereed RQ for years...
>can handle varying levels of detail (major NPCs get the same level as regular
>PCs, "drop-in" players get the same level as cannon-fodder), and can handle
>everything from a five-year-old pick pocket to Harrek.
>If Salinarg's kid can become a Sword aged 8, I want to know why, and how a PC
>could do the same thing.
Spend enough time on the Other Side, for a start. Make your vows over there. Risk all, and win. At least that's how the presentation felt...
I'd love to see Greg's excerpt from Harmast's book of that last stand hero a la Cuchulainn as an example with HW die rolls and abilities (well, also without them...) next to maybe this fish knife episode with the same explanations.
>> [HW] posits that within the world, the PCs operate heroically.
>Well mine don't, not all the time. And I don't want them to be forced into
>it. If I need to fiddle dice roll to keep the plot going, I can do that. I
>don't want the system to force me into letting them off every time.
My players' characters tend to operate unheroically, often villainous. In some cases, I'd like to see a conditional roll (say on a "hate" ability) to modify the combat or whatever conflicting resolution is going to happen. If the rules don't, I might anyway, but it would be oh so nice to be within the written framework...
re: sending in the flunkies:
If you treat them as separate encounters, there always is a chance that the PC will suffer a minor handicap during the "warmup" phase... Also, I'd like a "pool abilities" mechanic to handle five trollkin vs. Xena with the simple opposed roll.
>> As it happens, Intimidation was one of the notable abilities of one of the
>> HW demo game characters.
>Great! That's something that really needs rules, not just roleplay!
Especially if the opposition does it...
>> Though since there's no real distinction between magical and non-magical
>> abilities anyway...
>Pardon? If I understand you correctly, that's a HUGE difference between RQ and
>HW. I think I'm going to like it, but it sounds like converting from one to
>t'other is going to be tricky. Especially for a PC of mine who likes her
>Dispell Magics!
The conversion goes about like this: "My RQ character is a <keyword> say, "cultural Orlanthi" </keyword> <keyword> say, "worshipper of Issaries" </keyword> originally from the <keyword> soandso clan </keyword> famous for [insert high points], notorious for [list quirks, add] her tendendy to dispell enemies magics, ... (add forming parts of the PC's history). I'm told there is a comprehensive way to calculate abilities from both the keywords and the points specifically mentioned. Thus, if Dispell Magics is a repititive feature of your character, mention it, and get the ability.
>Still, I always did feel that (say) Fanaticism should be triggered by
>circumstances more often than by spells. ("Yes, your family are being
>butchered before your eyes, but you don't have Fanaticism or Berserk, so
>you attack as normal"). Or does HW just call it an Ability and continue
>to say you don't have it?
HW actually is supposed to say something like "it's an ability Go Into Murderous Killing Frenzy Watching Kin Threatened you may draw out of your hat (for spending a plot point?), and possibly confirm after the session with a plot point." I suppose the more you narrow the ability, the better your chance/mastery might be.
Powered by hypermail