...
> 2. The powers gained by a shaman
...
> cannot be used unlimited times
> during a given day
...
The HW rules for magic range and duration (HW:RiG pg 210, 231, 232) have always sat uneasily with me. The problem is, how long is a day, and how far is a mile? Evidence of developing insanity, you might think, but consider that the core mechanics do not involve measures of distance or time at all. The rounds of an extended contest do not have fixed duration, nor do APs represent distance (despite HW:RiG pg 144). Quite simply, there is nothing, other than Narrator fiat, that determines the distance or duration.
To try and make my thoughts clear, I'm going to talk in very gamist terms.
In a simulationist or gamist game, we would have things rather precisely located in place and time (possibly even using a map with figures on), and the various effects and trade offs of movement, duration, place and time would be represented. For example, a player could make a sensible decision about whether weakening a spell to extend its range was worthwhile, rather than moving to a closer position. Such decisions could be dramatic too (will the magician be vulnerable to interception while moving?).
Now, in HW, we dispense with precise measures of time and distance (as measured in the game world) for the irrelevancies (from a narrative PoV) that they often are: in the usual cinematic style, we simply cut from departure to arrival, or between the interesting parts of a battle (real war involves a lot of waiting, I'm told), and speed up or slow down the action (as measured by the passage of exchanges or contests: analogous to the amount of screen time, comic frames or book words) as we see fit. 'Normal' magic has a duration of one contest, which is entirely flexible, and perhaps even lengthy (as measured by an game-world clock), and is rarely (in our games) specified. But as soon as you want that magic to be 'extended', suddenly you need to know precisely how long exchanges and contests are. Of course, the rules can't tell you how long contests are, it is against fundamentals of the rules for them to do so, indeed, it is one of their strengths that they don't tell you contest lengths. The magic duration and range tables therefore seem rather out of place (as does the missile range table on pg 147). In our game, we rarely use them.
So what to do with the range rules? The extra resistance due to range effectively becomes an arbitrary number chosen by the Narrator. That is, use the range table merely for rough guidance, in the manner of the other example resistances (pg 119). Some are unhappy with such an approach, but I like it. It's 'up front': the players know in rules terms what they are against (if the Narrator declares the extra resistance), it suggests how to overcome the difficulties imposed by range (augment to get bonuses as large as the extra resistance, for example, using movement abilities) and it's clear to everyone how tough a particular range penalty is in rules and game-world terms (the best runner in the clan, with Run Fast 10W2, can overcome a range difficulty of D+5 in one action). The players can choose between, for example, rapid movement to overcome the range (augmenting) and a slower or long range method (not augmenting), and these have trade offs which depend on the kinds of abilities the characters have (e.g. for which is do you have a high ability, Run Fast or Lightning Javelin?).
More philosophically, this works well because range, when considered at all, is usually an obstacle to be overcome, which is well represented by extra resistance.
Representing the difficulty of extra duration with extra resistance is more problematic, I feel. The problem is that the passage of time is usually incidental to other activities, rather than something explicitly represented or an obstacle in itself.
For example: Aski the Priest (player 1) casts Sword Help on Hirod's war band before it goes to war. Hiord ambushes Lunar caravans and patrols. Let us imagine that Hiord (player 2) & Co. are the focus of the action. The scenes consist of ambushes. The challenges faced (and thus the kinds of contests) are likely to pertain to stealth and combat.
Aski could choose whatever extended duration he wished for the Sword Help. Aski has to choose between a large benefit for a short time or a small benefit for a long time. Aski could use his knowledge of Hiord's mobility, Lunar caravans, etc. to choose an optimum duration. But how can player 1 (Aski's player) decide on a good duration? A simple contest using War band Tactics against a suitable resistance should do it. What if the player looses the contest, indicating that Aski chooses a duration slightly smaller than optimum? The player's subsequent augmentation will face a smaller resistance, so the player can choose a larger augmentation. Player 2 (Hirod's player) will be apparently better off! The only way to ensure that Aski's mistake has consequences is for the augmentation to 'run out' before a contest in which it is needed. But how many contests should it be available for? In the case of a severe defeat, being unavailable for all the contests seems OK, but for a marginal defeat it should be available for some of the contests.
It seems, therefore, that extended durations should not be measured in hours, days, weeks and years, but contests and episodes.
What do people think?
Powered by hypermail