Re: Alex F's objection.

From: Eric Rowe <rowe_at_chaosium.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:03:11 -0700


>> Having three levels of Mastery to qualify as Rune level seems to me
>> to mean that the possible scale in HW to be more Finely Tuned then I
>> would have initially thought.
>Well, that's one way of looking at it; pointlessly small-grained, would
>be another. It's effectively putting about 50ish 'increments' between
>Joe Orlanthi and Rune Lord, which is 'worse than' RQ2 (or Pendragon), and
>'about as bad as' RQ3. Is the distinction between 13WW and 14WW in
>such a scale worth caring about any more than the difference between
>73% and 74% was?

The enormous assumption you are making here is that you are assuming that experience and character development in HW works like RQ. It doesn't. What if you could go to the hero plane, steal a spirit, and suddenly jump 20 points in a skill? Kinda gets rid of the small-grained problem. Incorrect assumptions lead to non-existant problems. You are trying to fit the partial set of rules you know into the RQ mold. It will not fit.

Doyle listed

No mastery: Normal Guy
W: Skilled Guy (or good initiate)
WW: Really skilled (nearly priest)
WWW: Rune lord or priest
WWWW: Rune Lord-Priest
WWWWW: Anyone from Sartar High Council Except Kallyr WWWWWW: Kallyr, or Argrath, Cwim, Hungry Jack, etc.

>That would be fine, if the categories you identified really were
>each of a different 'order' from the last. But a scale that
>has such rivettingly evocative distictions as 'skilled guy' from
>'really skilled guy' leaves me cold. Give the 'really' skilled
>guy a higher target number, sez I, and save a whole level of
>mastery for something _meaningful_.
>
>Here's a somewhat different scale, that makes a lot more intuitive
>sense to me:
>
>0..W : Joe Orlanthi
>W..WW : 'ordinary' rune master
>WW..W3 : tribal champion
>W3..W4 : local cultural hero
>w4..W5 : pan-cultural hero

>How does that grab you all? (On the basis of off-list email, I
>hope at least one of you agrees with it. <g>)

Frankly, the list already looks much like your list. However, you just spent three paragraphs whining about nomenclature, which Doyle agreed was misleading. He was just giving an example, not saying what the list should be.

Why can't you assume that the rules will work?

Eric Rowe


Powered by hypermail