>HW promises to do
>away with all this super power catalog (I hope) but itdoes make powerful
>characters invulnerable in that there are no chinks in their game system
>armour.
That would depend entirely how the character is described; thus the vulnerability of an NPC is decided by the GM, not the system itself. Using NPCs without achilles heels isn't very satisfying game-wise.
>Part of the 'strategy and tactics' of RQ included 'boosting' one
>character with all the top spells that could be found and sending him in as
>the only person capable of harming the BIG BAD MONSTER. I agree with Nick's
>point to some extent (that RQ was not good with these characters) but feel
>that HW may go too far the other way. (Anyone with several levels of combat
>mastery is going to be HARD TO KILL no matter how you attac him/her)
If a monster or NPCs is too tough or skilled to be defeated in combat, then it's a strong hint to the PCs to neutralize the threat with other methods. Violence *is* always an option, but sometimes the Ernalda Way is preferrable to an honourable/pointless death.
If the PCs are supposed to kill something, then the GM should make sure the PCs stand a chance of doing so. If they're supposed to kill something with multiple masteries in hand-to-hand combat, then i'd dare to hazard that the idea is to do so using other methods than hand-to-hand combat. Otherwise the scenario is badly planned indeed.
If an NPCs is described as virtually unkillable, i'd say that, story-wise, encounters with that NPC should serve another purpose than combat (unless it's meant to be a lesson in humility for the PCs).
In my Far Point campaign, the theme is to liberate Far Point from Harvar *spit* Ironfist, who is basically too tough for the PCs to defeat him in combat (judging by the HW draft, Harvar is a one-man army). Thus, there is little point in trying. Bringing the tyrant down by eroding his authority and power-base OTOH is difficult but doable.
Tangentially, one of the reasons i love HW is that the mechanics give ample room for alternatives to actions with the intent to kill when it comes to conflict, even in combat.
Frinstance, if you want to convince your former ally that you were not responsible for the death of his wife, you can use physical, social or mental abilities to achieve your goal even though your opponent uses combat abilities to achieve *his* goal (namely, kill you) in the contest.
Mechanics-wise, you could draw on your former friendship (ability 'ally') to convince him, while he uses his skill with the sword. The contest could be either simple or extended, and during an extended contest you can use other abilities in subsequent exchanges; 'truthful', 'persuasive' or 'dodge' (if you want to tire him out first) etc. You could even use 'pious' or a magical ability ("May all the gods listen; Orlanth curse me, Styx drown me, Humakt take me if i do not speak the truth") if it feels appropriate.
You don't have to use 'dodge' when he tries to chop your head off, and then 'retaliate' with a social ability when it's your turn to act. If your 'truthful' (=ability used) words ("Would i have come here as a friend, unarmed and alone, if i did kill your wife?") found their way to his heart (i.e. you won the exchange) then obviously you stayed out of reach while your arguments weakened his resolve to kill you. If he won the exchange, then possibly he decided that your words were merely self-serving rhetoric and is now holding you at swordpoint, saying "A false friend is worse than an honest enemy. Why shouldn't i kill you now, betrayer?"
Now, some would say that the situation is better resolved by roleplaying alone, not using dice at all. I'd agree, *if* i as GM had already decided that it fits the story better to either let you convince your former ally or not, or i wanted to control the outcome. I could let you roll an ability test (i.e. your opponent doesn't get to resist) after your arguments to see how well you plead your case, modifying the outcome slightly.
If i decide that both outcomes lead to interesting campaign situations, i'd use dice-rolls as well. But i'd never let this situation be resolved by numbers and dice-rolls alone; that'd be immensely anti-climactic.
Tom Merchant wonders:
>For me it's not about strike ranks. It's about whether I can present a
>living breathing world, warts and all. Can I present the terror of
>getting lost and not knowing where the next water hole is? Could
>someone post an example of how a 'warts and all' style encounter might
>be run? Can Hero Wars simulate people being crap - like they are in the
>real world?
No problem. Characters can start out on any power/ambition-level you wish. if characters are starving stickpickers then a contest about a loaf of bread can be highly dramatic and suspenseful.
OK. That was long. I'll shut up about the advantages of HW now.
Powered by hypermail