It's his total ability to solve problems in the storyline by fighting--with all factors that normally apply to those attempts already taken into account.
> Having superior equipment enhances that under most, (but not, as Rory
> points out, all), circumstances. Option B *appears* to mean that we
> have to add an extra calculation in to remind us that, for a given
> amount of experience/hero points a Seshnegi is better than a
> Heortling. And, indeed, if the knight becomes wealthier, and buys
> better armour, his combat rating increases for reasons unrelated to
> the usual method of raising ratings (its his Wealth that's been
> raised, after all).
He spends advancement points, as normal, and explains the advancement by saying that he's bought a better suit of his armor. Until he does that, he hasn't trained himself to use the better armor effectively (to pick one of a number of possible explanations) and doesn't increase his ability to overcome plot obstacles by fighting.
> That a Seshnegi knight of
> given experience/hero points is actually weaker than a starting
> Heortling warrior, and his armour merely compensates for that
> weakness?
But hero points don't exist in the world. They're just an abstraction for game play purposes. If you start thinking about them at all, you're headed for suspension of disbelief problems. They do not measure the world in any way, shape or form. Hero points aren't meant to tell us anything about the average ability of a population. They're a device to keep PCs more or less equal, but that's it. Any logical extrapolations you make about the world based on hero points are doomed to failure.
The two warriors in your example have an equal ability to solve problems by fighting. They just do so with different descriptive flavor. The Heortling is described as being determined, an expert spearman, and unpredictable in combat. The Seshnegi fights with his strong arm, his belief in his moral rectitude, and his gleaming suit of armor. When the Heortling wins an exchange, you describe one of these factors as winning out over the Seshnegi's advantages. When the Seshnegi wins, the description points out the superiority of his gear.
This is very much in keeping with the way these characters are described in fiction.
The warriors in your example not going to look at each other and say, "Hey, I have better armor than you, but we're built on the same number of hero points. What gives?"
HQ emulates narrative devices. It does not simulate reality. Hero points are a narrative device. Not a measure of reality, in Glorantha or anywhere else.
> > My impulse on special case armor
> > rules is to explain why they're more trouble than they're worth--and
> > then provide them in an optional sidebar, for the benefit of groups
> > who can't get their heads around the idea that they're not needed.
>
> I suspect that came out as snider than you intended ;) My apologies if
> I've sounded the same!
I retyped that a bunch of times trying to get the right phrase. Guess I needed to type at least one more time. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt!
Thanks also for continuing to answer my questions. This exchange will be helpful during the revision phase on the core rules.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail