(Please forgive me for not quoting from the thread properly or spell checking).
The general discussion about rates of ability increase seems to contain some strange logic. For example the suggestion that people learn more per year by adventuring in Pavis.
Characters advance at a rate proportional to the amount they are played. They improve in accordance with film logic not real world logic; how much game world time passes is near irrelevant.
At the start of a story a character wil face a daunting task. By the end of the story the character turns out to be capable of the task. Over the course of the story the character has improved. Whether the story covers an hour of time or a hundresd tears is irrelevent.
This is all an improvement system *needs* to allow. One of the ways HQ allows it is by players increasing a characters abilities.
A story needs to have a certain degree beleivability. Hence when long periods of time pass character are *sometimes* shown as having improved; if its relevant or necessary to the story. Hence a saga system of improvement could be useful.
However to argue backwards that because some individual improves a lot by spending time in Pavis therefore others must go to Pavis to gain a lot of experience is meaningless. The character improved a lot because he spent a lot of time on screen. If he had spent a lot of time onscreen wrapped in bubblewrap in a safehouse he would have improved just as much though in diffrent ways.
HQ simulates film logic. You can strap extra sim stuff on if you want. But it will still have film logic in there at its core. So it can never be a pure sim. Thus you cant argue from what emerges from applying the rules during play to deduce things about glorantha.
Powered by hypermail