<< Followers in HW do the following things for you -
Lend APs.
Keep multiple attackers off your back
Allow you to attack multiple people with no penalty
Can be sent on missions, make camp, cook, and all that other non-heroic
stuff.>>
The rules for followers are another bit of HW that I do think work well, lest anyone accuse me of being consistently negative...
<< If your hero has any pretension to herodom, he should at least have a
faithful companion, if not a dozen bully-boys! >>
This seems to be an appropriately Gloranthan attitude. I can't think of any characters I'd want to play (as opposed to write about) who would want followers, but then I don't have much interest in playing heroes with pretensions to herodom (if that isn't an oxymoron). If you don't want companions, fair enough, but you aren't likely to be a great hero in canonical Glorantha, which seems sensible to me. And its easy for groups who want lots of Onslaught-style loners to ignore that requirement; the Narrator just doesn't set the scenario up so that the enemy has a bunch of followers of his own, and concentrates on one-on-one combats instead.
<< I can't think of any canonical Gloranthan character that is a loner with
*no* followers (Onslaught not being canonical).>>
Although Martin Laurie has, IIRC, argued that Onslaught fits perfectly well with canonical sources, and is likely quite typical for a Humakti hero - although not, say, an Orlanthi one. Either way, HW would simulate him rather better than RQ did, IMO.
Griselda, OTOH, is mentioned in canonical sources, and while she isn't really a loner, she doesn't have any faceless followers, just allies. But, again, she isn't a hero in the Onslaught/Argrath sense, so there's still no contradiction.
Even non-combatant heroes, who have so far been a minority in canonical sources, would have a bunch of followers, IMO. Probably including bodyguards who can hold off the enemy while they run away!
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail