Re: Re: Ability advancement rate

From: Graham Robinson <graham_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:55:11 +0000

>Thanks, Graham & Wulf, for clarifying that your objection is that the
>rules are inappropriate for farmers' campaigns, where characters
>ascend from 5W to 5W2 (say) in 240 sessions.

I give up. I'm not running a farmers campaign, nor have I ever said so. As far as I'm aware, neither is Wulf.

My objection is that the difference between 17 and 17W is NOT the same as the difference between 17W2 and 17W3, yet the costs are the same. At 17W, Joe Orlanthi is outclassed by you, but has a slim chance. At 17W3, Joe Weaponthane is unlikely to touch you. Play for another year and many armies can't touch you.

Heroic characters do exist in Glorantha, and in a heroic campaign SHOULD exist. But they should not be made simply by the campaign having lasted twice as long. Heroes should be made by heroquesting, by communing with strange powers, by bold strategems. I feel the current linear system undervalues masteries and heroes.

Part of the problem here may be how important magic is to you. Charles earlier said he had put 60 hero points from 50 sessions into his best ability - but as that's magic, that only adds a mastery. My problem is with players putting 40 hero points from 80 sessions into their best ability - but as they are normally mundane, that adds two masteries. Many players don't see magic as a priority. They keep their best affinity bumped up enough to provide reasonable protection against others magic (and with a trickster in our midst, they do see the point of that...) but beyond that, mundane abilities look better value.


Graham Robinson

Albion Software Engineering Ltd.

Powered by hypermail