>Given that I wouldn't,
Er, given that I write him, I think its only fair to kinda allow me to quantify him according to the rules I play on a very regular basis. How would you know what skills Onslaught should have for HW?
>I'd like to echo the sentiments of the poster who wondered aloud why this
is >turning into an exercise in HW number crunching. Isn't it possible to
discuss >'what's a Hero like?' and 'is such-and-such a Hero?' without
resorting to overt >quantification?
Hmm, we have a scale in the rules that is quite definite in most areas. I don't see any harm in quantifying. Whats the point of having a scalable system if you can't actually say - this is how tough a hero is. By defining it, we can play it. RQ had us all stumbling around in the dark. Now we KNOW that a god is 8w on average and a hero is 4w.
Methinks though that your point was more to do with - how does one get to those stats mythically? Or did I miss?
> (And on a scale which itself is another Digest free-fire zone, to boot.)
Hmm, how so? Do you object to the scale or the fact that there is one? Or something else?
>> Hmm, not to sure about that. I believe a hero was simulatable in RQ, it
was
>> just very "large" and laborious.
>> Heroic abilities are simply abilities beyond the norm, they are still
>> scalable IMO.
>Perhaps this is why we're talking past each other here. If we're going
>to make argumenta ad greg, he's stated the contrary loudly and often
>in recent years. Yes, HW game mechanics represent them all in
>this manner, but I don't think anyone would claim that's strong
>evidence of anything.
Then what is the point of building a scalable game at all if we don't use it?!? Baffled.
>If you practice blowing long enough and hard enough, do you become Orlanth,
Possibly. Lokamayadon came pretty damn close. The point is that it is possible to do the greatest of deeds. If players want to play that, and its not everyones cuppa, then go ahead is what I say. What sayeth you?
>as the HW experience system might imply? (Not that that would make a very
>interesting campaign, I grant.)
If someone wants to run it, and doubltess someone will, I would hold judgement to see how they did it and whether it was interesting or not from my POV. Nothing wrong with the system allowing it IMO.
>I think in order to become a strong-sense-Hero, you have
>to first of all re-make yourself in the image of the Other Side,
>and if you want to go all the way in the Hero Biz, you have to then
>re-make the Other Side to incorporate yourself, into it.
Yes and no, from what I've read of the rules. I think you have to make yourself DIFFERENT from your god and THEN tear a hole in the God plane on a god quest that takes you through death and into godhood. At this point though, you cannot change your abilities so the would be god always tries to get as many abilities as possible before they cross over as it will make them more likely to be worshipped after they are no longer walking the earth.
> I would place him as superior to Argrath in combat and weaker than Harrek.
> However, I'll be honest and say that given the paucity of material on the
> subject till recently, such classification has been impossible for anyone
> with any degree of certainty.
>I'll agree with that caveat, in spades.
Which is part of our problem in debating this.
>What 'the real Argrath' is like is very much something one can argue anyway
one >likes anyway, much less the issue of the actual game-scale.
I would agree in part with this. His actual persona is going to be debated with the multuple Argrath problem but I do believe we can scale him fairly broadly in the game by saying what he is not and what he must be to have done as he did. By the LBQ he has to be 3 masteries in a few skills, at least and by the time of the falling moon, he is a god (4W+) IMO.
>Mind you, if it's largely
>Argrath's companions that do the board-game CF 4 nonsense, I'd not
>want to argue with _them_...
Exactly, and that is what my Argrath player spends his plot points on by and large.
> The advantage of the HW rules is that we will
> finally lay these issues to rest.
>That's "lay to rest" in the Al Pacino sense, perhaps... More like,
>throw petrol on the fores thereof, I'll wager. A higher hope is
>surely that what Hero Wars will do is tell us a good deal more about
>Becoming, and Being a Hero in an actual Glorantha sense.
Oh definately. Concur 100%. She Guards Us will show the players what they must do to be a Lunar hero, the options for which are endless and broad.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail