Blast from the past: Re: Heroes

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:01:03 +0100 (BST)

Gian Gero:
> >I haven't played long enough to have a terribly good feel for this
> >(and the 'Johnny One Ability' thing is something I've feft sufficiently
> >uneasy about that I have have (not so) subtly discouraged it, anyway),
> >but I think the recognise the pattern, yes. It's certainly different
> >from RQ; as far as making a good game, and perhaps even as regards
> >'Gloranthan reality' I think it maybe goes a bit _too_ far in the
> >other direction. (In RQ everyone does everything, in HW nobody
> >does nuthin', to put it in crude terms.)
>
> I didn't understand always what Alex means. My fault.

Well, doubtless mine too, at least in part. If you could break down your areas of puzzlement somewhat...

> >Two good HW rules to help counterbalance this, btw, are directed HP
> >awards (which I think are mentioned, though very much in passing last I
> > >looked), and the rule about half-cost for abilities that were
> >narratively significant. (Or double cost for ones that weren't, for
> >you pessimists...) Thankfully neither of them are in the realms of
> >RQ 'tick-fishing', though.
>
> Idem as above. Please, Alex, explain me what's your point here.

I'm just applauding the way HW handles character advancement, basically. I think it strikes a decent balance between pure points based, and pure gameplay-based. (The danger with the later being than rather than roleplaying driving 'experience checks', the desire for 'ticks' drives the way the 'roll-playing' happens.)

Cheers,
Alex.

---