Responses to Mr Ramos-Tavener

From: danny bourne <d.bourne_at_dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:22:03 +0100


>From: Doyle Wayne Ramos-Tavener <tavener_at_swbell.net>
>Subject: Hero Wars topics
>

>Topic # 1 - Hero Wars is the best method by which Glorantha may be
>introduced to a new generation of gamers.
>
>Hero Wars is certainly better at this than Runequest, which is dead,
>commercially. When I ran the Troubled Waters campaign, all of my players
>assumed, after an cursory examination of RQ mechanics, that RQ was a
>monster combat RPG, like Rolemaster. They wondered why I was wasting my
>time, and theirs. And this was just a year or so after Vampire. Nowadays
>even more people will have this opinion, I am afraid.

I'm not sure this is correct, depending on your definition of new generation of gamers. Do you mean people who to play but are a decade or so younger than us crumblies or do you mean people coming in fresh to RPGs? If the former then you're probably correct, but I wouldn't agree in the latter case as they would have nothing else with which to compare it.

>I urge all to recall that RQ mechanics distort a proper understanding of
>Glorantha, whoever the GM and Players might be.

I would say that *game mechanics* distort a proper understanding. Any representational 'rules' system has to.

I do want a
>set of table-top rules that models HQ-stuff as much as humanly possible.

I assume you mean RPG rules rather than table top miniatue rules. No miniatures rules will work for HQ because of all the miffic stuff involved.

>Topic # 3 - Can Hero Wars sell?
>
>Today's market for games cannot be easily characterized. What the hell,
>let's give it a try.

I'd say that if HW sells 5,000+ copies, then it's been a decent success
>
>A - Games with few rules sell more than games than many rules.

I don't feel that this is necessarily true either. My top sellers list has ADND first, Rifts third, Shadowrun fith, Star wards 7, GURPS 8 with the other spots filled by world of dampness and Deadlands. None of the above mentioned I would call particularly rules lite. Especially not the first two (though maybe yes for GURPS). However, I agree particularly with point B

>
>It is axiom that good adventures are hard to write. RQ had better scenarios
>than _anybody_ in the industry, with the single exception of Call of
>Cthulhu. This was undeniably part of the appeal of the old line, one that I
>hope finds a place in the new line, and not just on a website.

It's also true to say that a good rules system makes it easier to write good adventures. CoC has a strong, simple rules system which makes the framework of an adventure easy to write for (average SAN loss, what skills to include etc). I do feel that it'll be harder to write good scenarios, or scenarios that can be structured in terms of what skill roles to make, because of the key word system. It's a lot simpler to,s ay, make a spot hidden role for RQ than to look through each character's key words, decide which is the most appropriate & then add a penalty or bonus depending on how fitting that key word is in comparison to spot hidden. I've tried to write scenarios based around the HW characters I've got and it's a real headache for simple things like 'listen' or 'move quietly' rolls.

Please don't take the above as a criticism of your position, but just as my thoughts.

Danny

PS Damn, MOB's agreed with me 100% about something. There goes my street cred ;)


Powered by hypermail