Because we want to play HQ, if we wanted to play D&D we would. I find it quite annoying to get comments like this, and they seem not infrequent in this list. I have a problem with how "I" play HQ, this list is for helping, yet I am seeing very negative feedback along the line of "oh you dont do it right, you are unworthy. please begone!" If I wish to play HQ with less narrative, or more emphasis on some mechanical realties then that is my choice. :)
>
> >One of my players was a hunter, he thought he would sit back and
> >shoot things (it always worked in D&D...), he put skill points
into
> >shoot AND melee. Another player was a Humakti, he put everything
> >into melee.
>
> I can stop you right here. The problem here is related to the
difference in
> highest ability level. If the archer had the same level in archery
as the
> Humakti would there have been as much of a problem? I doubt it.
This is a
> somewhat complex issue, and deserves it's own thread if you really
want to
> talk about it. But it mostly comes down to the style issue again.
Agreed
>The players care about how powerful their characters are. That
shouldn't happen
> in HQ.
Not at all, that is your assumption. My players dont care about anything, they solved the problem by simply not using it... which to me suggestions there is a problem, either with the mechanics or with how I am running them... hence this post.
>That is, in HQ it's entirely possible to play second fiddle to
> someone else's character and enjoy the game as much or more than
if your
> character was equal in power. Because it's not about power at all,
but why
> you use the power.
>
> >I tried using lots of weak archers at various points, they simply
> >became an AP battery for the target. My players would run out and
> >yell "Shoot ME, shoot ME!!!" So I stopped doing that.
>
> Sounds to me like you have lots of transfer results in your games.
Opponents
> don't ever need to be weaker than the Heroes, and certainly not
enough to
> cause lots of transfers. But the real problem is, as somebody else
pointed
> out, that your players are ignoring the narrations apparently and
thinking
> of AP as HP. As long as that continues, they aren't going to enjoy
the game
> in general.
My response is "you DONT get lots of transfers in your game?" HQ combat at the mechanical level is ALL about transfers. Transfers WIN the combat... the entire idea of berserkers that work is that they get transfers to make them awesome... My players spend HPs to grab transfers when they present a viable option.
As for opponents being weaker, no they dont have to be, but a trollkin is a trollkin... are you suggesting I beef up my trollkin progressively as my players develop? That doesnt sound right.
>
> And in any case, how is this any different from melee. Do they
also stride
> out in front of weak melee opponents and shout, "Hit me!" Because
the effect
> for a particular level is the same.
>
> Lastly, what are a lot of weak archers supposed to accomplish?
Being easy
> targets for the PC archer? This just seems misguided. Again, it's
not about
> power. Make the opposition whatever seems most realistic, and play
it out.
> It all works out in the end.
>
> >Explaining this away in a narrative fashion is easy, yes I can
make
> >up some story, but it ISNT reality. Reality is that an archer
> >reasonably happy with his safety (defended position) is quite
> >effective. An archer behind a wall is in heaven. Lots of archers
> >shooting at targets in the open should be effective...
>
> I think that you're incorrect, if done right it all seems
perfectly
> realistic. From some perspectives expecting the system to match up
with
> reality isn't important at all, but I'll leave that consideration
behind for
> a moment, because it's obviously important to you, and to your
players.
I disagree entirely. The game models reality, reality is the norm and the basis on how we play. Without reality you dont have a basis from which to push into unreal moments. Any game system HAS to start with reality because that is what we all know and understand, then we bend and abuse it to accomplish our ends.
>But
> even when it is important, I think that the rules do just fine in
simulating
> reality.
>
> From another POV, you're saying that you think that archery should
just be
> more effective.
Not at all, you are locked into your initial view that I am a D&D power gamer and cant break away from it. What I was saying was that there were some aspects of the HQ combat mechanics that did not model reality very well... or very cognitively... such that I had difficulty converting my experiences with how archery worked into HQ terms. I was asking for help not criticism.
>But HQ starts with the assumption that power is based on
> ability level. So if you really think that archery is a more
effective form
> of combat or something, then just raise the archer's levels
(allowed per
> rules), until the level matches the effectiveness that you think
it should
> be at. If you have to use the "realism" perspective, and make this
> assertion, it would mean that a character with the same level in
archery as
> a character with a melee weapon would actually be relatively less
well
> trained/suited to being an archer. So, either the player has to be
satisfied
> with that, or you have to give him more levels.
>
> But it's all not needed if the players are in the spirit of the
game.
>
> >Thinks of the classic ending to "1001 Spartans" where the persians
> >get sick of trying to melee them and stand back and mow them down
> >with arrows... the sky turns black...
>
> Works just fine in HQ, if you keep in mind that the Spartans
aren't just
> standing still getting shot. Just because it's your character's
round in an
> extended contest doesn't mean that the opposition isn't still
fighting,
> advancing, whatever.
>
> >Multiple attack penalties are one way around this, shoot lots of
> >archers at a single target and wear them down, bidding 1AP each
till
> >they are weak... works fine.
>
> No idea what you're getting at here.
>
> >But a single (player) archer seems to have serious problems within
> >the game. Duplicating Legolas is very hard in HQ..
>
> Depicting Legolas would be very easy. He's probably about a 10W4
archer
> attacking 5W orcs. He's going to mow them down in droves. I can't
imagine
> what the problem would be.
Yes he would be good at shooting 5w orcs, but he would get splattered against the 5w4 cave troll. Selectively diassembling my posts (as I am here...) is a good way to miss the overall point I was making.
...
>
> You're trying to twist HQ into something like D&D. Forgive me if I
seem a
> bit excited, but that really disturbs me. The game is vastly
superior for
> the style it supports, and the last thing it needs is alterations
of this
> nature. Again, if you really want to play in this mode, I think
that there
> are far better games than HQ for you to play. The thing that's
most
> problematic, however, is saying that there's a problem with the
system when
> in fact the problem is that you just don't like it. That doesn't
mean that
> it doesn't play perfectly well for others.
>
> Mike
>
I find this paragraph really offensive and presumptuious. Merely because I mentioned that my players were ex-d&d players you assume I am trying to convert HQ into D&D. How incredibly elitist of you.
What I am trying to do is come to grips with ONE area of the HQ system that I find uncomfortable. If all you can do is dismiss me as a "D&D hack" then it would be better if you didnt respond at all.
But I will forgive you because you are obviously way out there in the narrative right wing and cant help yourself... :-)
Powered by hypermail