> But I'm also leery of something like the "in love" table below what
> if people put abilities in different ways?
>
> "Adores X, Infatuated with X, Obsessed by X, In Love with X, Loves
> X, Grand Passion for X"
It's the "professionnal runner" (17) vs "run like a galloping horse" (17) problem again... which of them is the quickest ?
There are two options :
Fine, but how do you handle a running contest between the two of them ? "Run like a galloping horse" should benefit a important bonus in this contest... How do you estimate it ?
This option favours megalomaniac players, who will prefer "kill everything in one strike" (13) than "veteran soldier" (5M1)...
2) Ranks prevail : "professionnal runner" (17)runs as fast as "run like a galloping horse" (17).
In this case, we can simply use the contest rules to know which of them will win.
By way of consequence the naming (description) of each ability should match the meaning of the rank :
"professionnal runner" (17) "run like a galloping horse" (10M1) "run like the wind" (5M3)
I prefer this option, because it makes sense.
> I don't think it gets as simple as your table. Again, any GM might
> want that table for their own game, of course.
I don't think it's as simple either... But I would like to have some scales, even if I choose to ignore them, change them... It would ease my work, that's the purpose of roleplaying rules : make things easier.
I don't want scales for everything, but with a love scale I can work a hate scale, a loyaulty scale... out.
Because relations and fealings are the heroquest's abilities, I find the most difficult to figure out. What's the difference between "in love" (5M1) and "in love" (5M2) ? I don't want to know the difference between them just because I'm a bloody simulationnist nerd who-wants-to-calculate-everything-even-feelings... but because I need it to play it or to narrate it.
Relations or feelings abilities should not be there just to give augments or information, they must be played, they have drawbacks... But how can I play, describe, narrate them if I can't figure out their intensity ?
> I far prefer something like the "Master and Master's Master" table
> we saw in the Hero Book (was it?). Best in clan, Best in Tribe, Best
> in the Land, Best in the World kind of thing. Or Master, Master's
> master, Heroic, Superheroic, Godlike, etc.
These would be useful too !
> If you set the bar for Superheroic as 10W4 then
> something that's slightly easier could be 10W3. If
> it's something a superhero would only do if lucky then
> 10W5. Look ma, no tables required, just a conception
> of what you feel is mundane/heroic/superheroic/godlike
> and a set of values that match that.
But I have no idea of the difference between heroic / superheroic / godlike... I have no way to estimate it...
Breaking the gate of a lunar forteress with tour axe : is it heroic, superheroic, godlike ? I don't know.
Maybe you can estimate it easiliy. Good for you ! But I can't understand why some tables and scales for guys like me would spoil your games or your much beloved heroquest rules ?
When I don't like a rule, I change it. Mysticism disappear in heroquest ? I keep it. Too many augments in heroquest, I put a limit !
Or maybe you don't want scales and tables because you need a pure narrative heroquest system as a flagship of your way of playing ? No problem, we will bury tables and scales in a deep hidden appendix and both of us will be pleased. :)
Babel Demeter
Powered by hypermail