Well, it seems the process of dissecting the new game on the digest has begun, so we might as well get on with it.
>GENERAL COMMENTS
>1) The characters seem to be rather more powerful than would have been created
>using the the keyword + four abilities method, and private divinations seem to
>support this contention.
If it really bothers people, just up it from four abilities. In practice, it probably doesn't matter all that much - 'Power' is a very relative term in Hero Wars - in terms of absolute power, its really the score in your most important abilities (ie Close Combat) rather than how many abilities that matters. Which just goes to show that 'power' really has very little to do with how valuable a character is, and how much fun it is to play them.
>2) All the keywords here are equivalent to RQ 'rune levels'.
Thats Robins preference. Chaosium may well change this.
>3) I'm guessing that some abilities are 6/14 because the keyword description
>says so, right?
Yep.
>4) I am very pleased to see that Yinkin has been added as a cult, and that
>Mastakos looks more interesting that he does in RQ3.
There are lots of interesting cults to play. Apart from the new ones (Hantrafal, Hedkoranth, Dovilda, etc) it is now quite practical to play cults like Heler, Kero Fin, etc. It is a great asset of the system.
>1) On the whole, these look good, but some are a little puzzling. What is
>the difference in rules terms between:
>
>good memory and wise
>tenacious and determined
>cunning, resourceful and quick-thinking
>agility, fleet-footed and nimble ?
In rules terms? Nothing really set out. Of course, good memory and wise actually are quiet different abilities, so in some sitations you might be able to use one and not the other (or one will get a bonus and one will get a penalty). If two abilities are very similar, then they are for all practical purposes the same.
>2) And when on Earth would you make rolls against the following, and what
>would be the results of success/failure?
>
>hospitable, tenacious, determined, impartial, belligerent, ruthless (although
>I guess these could be used like Pendragon personality traits)
>cunning, quick-thinking, resourceful, unpredictable, wise, grim, tactiturn,
>driven
It all depends. All of them can be used in a contest at some point.
Examples -
Player - I wish to befriend the visiting clan emissaries.
GM - they are quite suspicious.
Player - but I'm very hospitable
GM - OK, simple contest your hospitable vs their suspicious.
<dice rolled>
GM - OK, you got a big success vs their failure - they would never kill a
sheep just to make sure their visitors had food like you did, and they are
very impressed with your generosity. Relaxing after a great meal, having
drunk well of your great wine, they loosen up and start to treat you as a
friend.
OR
GM - she tries to convince you to support her side in the lawsuit, by
offering persuasive arguments that a win for her side will help your family
Player - But I am impartial, and I am not swayed by her arguments.
GM - OK, extended contest your impartial vs her persuade, and I'll give you
a +3 bonus because its so appropriate.
>3) I note that some characters have 'Close Combat', while others have
>'Quarterstaff Combat' or 'Swordsmanship'. While the former seems a little too
>all-purpose for my tastes, would I at least be right in assuming that its
>restricted to members of warrior cults? If not, what would prevent anybody
>from writing 'skilled in all weapons' on their character write-up?
Nothing. Then they too are a competent warrior. They won't be quite as good at it as a full time warrior, but they won't be much worse either. If you want your character to be able to fight well, they can. Of course, the warriors guys will have supporting abilities, combat in their magic package, and so on, as well, plus they are assumed to have the support of the tribe and the appropriate equipment. But generally, if your character concept includes them being able to fight well, even if that is not part of their social role, then they can.
>1) 'Speak many languages' seems a bit vague.
Yes. It should eventually be fleshed out in play - if its discovered that you don't know the language of the Tarshites at all (ie big failure in play), you probably continue not to know it until the GM says so.
>2) 'Cheat death' also seems alarmingly general
Its a cool magical ability - such things are inevitably fleshed out in play as to exactly what they mean. Or the GM and player could go over it when it appears. Generally, you'll find an ability like cheat death is only applicable in a very few situations.
(SUBLIMINAL MIND CONTROL MESSAGE TO MIKE CULE
Shut up about the damn status point mechanic. You've lost this one.
END SUBLIMINAL MIND CONTROL MESSAGE)
Now, Brian Tickler says
- - ---
Bob, a /Humakti Hero/, is as [deadly in armed and unarmed combat] as he
is [adept in Death magic]. [Strong] and [hardy], yet [agile] and
[cunning], he is famed for [snatching victory from certain defeat].
Blessed with his knack for [overcoming seemingly superior foes] and [quick
recuperation], he is [well-respected] by most. Some are surprised to find
him [charismatic] and [knowledgable in cultures near and far].
Most remarkable though is his [ability to strike down any foe who attempts a foolhardy, movie-like, heroic maneuver against him]. His penchant for [outwitting people in their own areas of expertise] is also notable. - - ---
To go through this one in detail: Humakti Hero is not a keyword, but Huamkti Death Lord is. It includes close combat and the Humakt Magic Package (which is mostly Death magic) anyway, so the rest of that sentence is redundant. In any case, you would be exactly as good at them as someone who just said 'Humakt Death Lord', or possibly slightly worse. Strong, hardy, agile and cunning are all valid, though a little dull. [snatching victory from defeat] I wouldn't allow, as its too abstract - I'd make that [famed for snatching victory from defeat] instead. Unless you desired it to be some sort of better defined magical ability - in which case you will find that it only works against people with weak magic. I also don't think I'd allow overcoming superiour foes - I'd just disallow that, or better yet treat it as [knows he can overcome superiour foes]. Quick recuperation is fine. Ability to strike down any foe who attempts a foolhardy, movie-like, heroic maneuver against him I'd say is probably best done as a bonus to close combat. Outwitting people in their own expertise I would again disallow, as simply paradoxical. There you are. The GM and player negotiation process done before your eyes. Now, want to go away and make up something more fun to play, or want to play the cut down version? Your choice.
Brians motives in this are simply to point out alleged flaws of the system. He neglects to consider that GMs are not idiots, and can refuse any sufficiently ridiculous ability. And as for strong, hardy, etc - loading yourself up with generally useful abilities like this is useful, and probably quite a reasonable tactic, but it doesn't make your character any more interesting, so abilities like this rather than cool yet very specific abilities like 'knows secret entrance to Hell' can be less fun in play.
Cheers
David
'...never support evil as a preferred lifestyle'
-TSR Inc corporate standards OldThinkers UnBellyFeel MoonWise! - Nick Brooke ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #226
Powered by hypermail