>I'd be tempted to just treat all characters as if they were
>concentrated on "charms" (probably really talents, in HQ terms), which
>not only enables them to use their magic abilities actively, but also
>enables them to buy a 1 point improvement for one Hero Point. Not
>culturally appropriate, of course.
But aren't all charms/talents under the Common Magic keyword, which can't be improved?
>I probably will continue to introduce Hero Point bumps with kids --
>I've noticed that the concept of deliberately improving bad rolls goes
>over well with kids, both in HQ and in another roleplaying game I've
>tested that has a similar concept.
I concur, it probably would have worked fine.
>How did they do with augmenting? I've run into kids who might not be
>able to do the math -- I've done it for them in some cases: "I'll let
>you add a +2 bonus on this fight because he's strong."
I didn't tell them it was skill / 10 (or at least didn't emphasize that). I think they did get the concept of adding up relevant stuff.
Other Rob:
> > I probably bent the rules severely
> > (Elise kept using her common magic actively), but what the heck.
>
>I run it like this with adults sometimes David. I'm not arguing that
>its a bad rule the whole active/not active thing - because in a full
>campaign you need that discrimination I feel - but I always get a
>pang when you see how disapointed people are they can't 'do' magic,
>they just get an augment.
Yeah, I'm not at all sure this was an improvement in HQ (over Hero Wars). I do like the idea of having some sort of lesser magic (more like RuneQuest battle magic), and told everyone that as beginning characters, their magic wasn't all that powerful.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail