> Title says it all really. Has anyone played with this - discrete
> combat results and wounds? Are there alt rules modules online?
I have one up at my (v. ugly) website :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/runelord/runelord/runelord.htm
(follow link, top right hand corner)
Given my current thinking, I'm not using them myself (although I'd be happy to clarify them in private e-mail to anyone interested).
I think the apparent problems with the non-simulationism of HW are actually derived from other issues than simulationism per se. There's a "non-crunchy" design philosophy issue here, and a "crunchy" system design one.
The "non-crunchy" issue is that the HW system has less randomness to it than usually expected from a RPG. People are used to rolling for damage or other effects, these effects being dicrete and "permanent", and are consciously or unconsciously disturbed when the system doesn't provide for this. My own rules module provides a system for this, and it would be satisfying for me except that it ultimately works against another section of my house rules style by hindering the portrayal of large-scale effects such as mass combat and other group activities (which was a surprise, it should theoretically have improved that portrayal).
The "crunchy" issue is that HW didn't have a rock-solid logarithmic foundation (well, actually Lawsian foundation yes, ground floor & fully functional supporting pillars no), and this leads to the game system occasionally producing distortions or warp fields that feel uncomfortable during game play, for instance wild or counterintuitive variations in current AP tallies, TNs, Augments etc. HQ will definitely improve on this, but not I think resolve the problem or "problem" completely.
James :
> > Personally, I'm becoming disatisfied with Extended Contests as
> > written, especially for combat. I'm not sure, but I think it's the
> > way that results are not permanent until the end. I wouldn't say
> > that simulation is my goal.
Maybe a different narrative approach would be helpful : remember that this is Glorantha, and that HW characters really aren't that different to RQ ones (except they're a hell of a lot easier to simulate). They've still got their Heal 6 matrices, and bound spirits and stored MPs and DI rolls etc : but HW simulates all of this as APs. But you can still describe these things as taking place. And HQ will be more crunchy about these matters AFAIK.
So you can still describe combat results however you like, even 'permanent' ones ; but remember that Gloranthan characters can call on their inner magic etc to bring themselves back into a fight/situation/conflict, just the same as in RQ, despite the fact that HW is more abstract than the old game.
Of course, not everyone would enjoy this approach.
David Dunham :
> Does your group use the Wounds rule(s)? I came up with the "trade -7
> AP loss for a -1 wound) precisely to simulate combats where the victor
> ends up wounded.
That's not a rule suitable to everyone's house style, of course. It seems to imply the kind of lengthy tactical situation that many HW players seem to want to get away from (but I like 'em !).
> And a narrator is always free to apply a similar
> penalty for an AP loss of 15 or more (p. 151).
Wow, never really noticed that rule : buried in the truly awful layout of HW:RiG ... Like it !
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail