"Shield Destroyer, Sword Breaker... how do these do what they say
under the current mechanics?"
How about both use simple tests of the feat against the opponents close combat, substituting another ability if it's more appropriate or the score of the magic item? If it works, no more sword or shield.
"Let the player describe how he will do it... NO WAY. I can see my players now... Sword break him, shield destroy him, decap him... next! If they dont do what they say what is the point of having them?"
It's more "Let the player describe how he wants to do it." So "I invoke Humakt to break his sword" means "I attempt to invoke Humakt to break his sword." In most games I've read about people's affinities tend to be a lot lower than most mundane abilities so it goes something like: "Oh bugger, my combat affinity is a mastery down on the opponents close combat, I wasted an action."
"You may just as well say: implement augment #1, augment #2, augment #3, next!"
Sorry to disabuse you old son, but that is the game system, in a nutshell. At the most primitive level the players choices are "How can I get an advantage in the contest so that when it comes down to the crunch I can win it?" Usually that's by taking actions to augment your target number or reduce the effectiveness of the opponent.
How do you stop players doing the same sort of thing in RQ, or DnD? "Stop's" probably a bit harsh, but how do you make things more interesting for the players? It's exactly the same in HW.
FEX DnD combats all turn into a napoleonic, "let 'em have it with the artillery (sleep/Fireball/cloudkill dependent on level) then in with the bayonet ( 1/ 3/ 5 chainsaw of Doom)" and RQ combats turn into "implement augment #1 (bladesharp 8), augment #2 (protection 4), wait for critical, next!"
In both cases you can modify things a fair bit and you have to keep the game interesting. "It's a bunch of elves, Sleep doesn't work, oh dear!" or "Shame you didn't use countermagic instead of protection as those baboons all know disruption."
Likewise the player description aspect - it has to happen in HW, RQ or DnD or you end up with sterile games. All RPGs are narative in form, otherwise you just end up with a (fairly crap) set of skirmish wargame rules with experience points.
Cheers,
Ash - who had the same sort of concerns 'til he realised he was GMing RQ in the same sort of way he now does HW.
Powered by hypermail