Re: Re: Ability advancement rate

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:32:08 +0000


Graham Robinson wrote:
...
> 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.

Well, you both *seem* to object to ability advancement much above the xW2 level, which is the top end for a farmers' campaign. It is impossible to play in a Heroic campaign without advancing beyond that level.

...
> 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.

...

I don't understand. The difference between 17 and 17W *is* the same as the difference between 17W2 and 17W3. In the contest rules, the masteries cancel out.

The difference between a 17 character and a 17W2 character is the kind of opposition they face. The Narrator will choose the level of the opposition to provide a challenge to the players, which means the relative strength of the opposition is always roughly constant. For a 17 character, the challenges might be Intransigent Pigs and Drunken Carls. At 17W2 the challenges might be Chaos Horrors and Enraged Tribal Champions. The 17W2 character will not face Intransigent Pigs and Drunken Carls for the same reason that the 17 character does not have to Lift Slug or Break Twig. Yes, there is an ability level at which whole armies can't touch you. That's the level at which your opposition are Heroes and Super Heroes.

You seem to want to allow character improvement, but not allow character improvement. If characters improve, the Narrator must provide tougher opposition to maintain player interest. Was it not the same in RQ? RQ, however, was broken by not supporting improvement above the Runelord level. HW scales to all ability levels, by design.

Powered by hypermail