Probably not. It was the relationship that gave her the incentive to do so. She then had to defend against the incoming triple-mastery attack with her own combat ability, which was 6 - don't bother rolling. The only question was whether incoming Big Nasty decided not to attack after all, and there I just wasn't lucky. Or I was, but she wasn't.
If I'd been running a character with better combat ability than the one being attacked, would I have dived in? I don't know. It would depend on what relationships they had, what geases or other personality traits they had, and so on. My Humakti certainly doesn't jump in front of any incoming danger to protect everyone else unless she's got a good reason to do so. In the situation above, for reasons which I'll leave out due to potential spoilers, I think she'd have joined in all right - on Big Nasty's side.
But then, this comes down to style of play. HQ allows me to play like this, which is great. It allows me to decide that at times, my own followers will be acting against my PC (and winning!) because that's what drama and the story demands. It doesn't force everyone else to play things the same way, nor should it. No-one can make you do anything :)
> I refer only to problematic
> min-maxing like Scott is suggesting, where the players ignore
> drama for the sake of always winning.
There I think I'd go with the advice others have given - get some new players, no matter what system you're using. Unless of course the whole group happens to enjoy that style of play, in which case go with it.
I must say I think HQ is better than any other system at making it quite clear that if the GM rules something to be unreasonable, then that's final. No "but the rules say I can" whining allowed.
> If it happens that drama and min-maxing coincide, then that's
> great. In fact, I'd say that this is precisely what makes HQ
> the best game I've ever played.
Yes, I'd agree. Because, when you really want to do something extraordinary and heroic, you can.
Powered by hypermail