My question:how do HQ2 authors help readers compare characters and anything else that would have anability or keyword, if there are no numbers assigned to them?
Before I dive in, I don't think that anyone should design a system to avoid the issue below. The tail would be wagging the dog.
Jeff asks and says:
> Maybe I am completely missing the point, but why would you need to? If
> you want to say that Harrek the Beserk is impossible to fight against,
> just give a contest involving fighting him an impossible difficulty
> factor. If Temertain is easy to persuade, make persuading him easy. If
> it doesn't matter, then use the pass/fail cycle - if the players have
> lost every contest for twenty consecutive sessions amd are getting
> discourage and now they face Harrek, make it easy. If they've won
> every contest in row since god knows when, make it near impossible to
>persuade Temertain. NPC stats just don't figure in.
The problem is that the players will often start off not being on a side in a conflict had have to choose. A published adventure might contain 30 or so narrator characters. A series of adventures might contain a hundred. So, as narrator, I start and adventure and my ingenious players end up doing something that brings together two narrator characters in a potential conflict. As members of the community, the players' characters should know which one of the two narrator characters is likelier to succeed. Sure, you can resolve some of these by saying that Oddi is noted for his rabble-rousing speeched, while Braggi is a taciturn Humakti, so Oddi's going to win the debate. But what happens when both character write-ups have noted relevant abilities or are equally silent? Numbers give the narrator a clue about who would be better.
Ian Cooper says:
> Using the significant abilities section of the npc write up I showed you.
Nope, that doesn't do it. It works fine if the players have picked a side with respect to the NPC -- either helping or hindering. But when faced with the choice, the players need the information that their characters ought to know. The numbers gave the narrator at least some guidance.
Jamie asks Ian:
> I think he means "what if they're both 'legendary'?" Does that
> necessarily mean they're evenly matched - I would have thought not?
Exactly my concern.
To which Jeff replies:
> You mean, can the Hulk beat Superman? We all know the Hulk gets
> stronger the madder he gets, so obviously he'll win! :)
>
> Seriously, if it truly is important in your story whether Ethilrist
> can beat Argrath in a sword fight, then you probably don't want some
> half-assed stats that Greg or I came up with.
And Ian further said:
> How do you decide if Harrek or JarEel is the better swordsman? My
> answer would be go with the outcome that makes the story more
> interesting at the time.
Set aside the big name characters. There's enough published on them that I feel like I could make it up. It's the cases where there's not a lot published that I would want guidance. So, when I'm playing the Sartar Rising series, how do I know how the second-tier leaders and their sidekicks stack up against each other (because a good Orlanthi wants to be associated with the best leader) and against the baddies? I recall that the Sartar Rising series has at least some numbers in it, so I can make some of those comparisons.
And Robin further said (post-editing):
> Fictional sources often rank characters: we know that the Joker
> is scarier than Poison Ivy, Sauron more of a threat than Saruman,
> that the Toshiro Mifune character in Yojimbo is a better swordsman
> than anyone else in town. Sometimes we conclude this because
> we see conflicts resolved on stage. In other instances, we're told
> who's tough simply through exposition, before the character has a
> chance to actively demonstrate it. In fiction, it's better to show than
> tell but authors tell us stuff all the time.
Yes, but take the Sartar Rising series as an example. There are lots of second-tier leaders who are essentially new. The number help succintly explain how they rank compared to everyone else for whom numbers have been assigned. Substituting for those numbers seems to me like it would be very difficult.
To answer my own question, I think the answer becomes: without numbers, the narrator makes it up. If that's the answer in HQ2, I suppose I am fine with that, but it leaves open lots of questions where I'd like answers. I won't even know I have some of those questions until they come up in play; the numbers help come up some sort of answer ont he fly. I realize that the number necessarily leave out information as well, but they certainly did provide a lot. What's bigger, what's faster, those sorts of questions. I also realize that one wouldn't build a game mechanic around my question, so it's not intended as a criticism of the system. I'm just looking for an answer that is more helpful than "the narrator has to make it up as you go along." It sounds like there's really nothing that writers can do to help fill the gap.
Jeff also asks:
> Or am I completely missing the boat?
Yes. Better jump! :-)
Chris
Powered by hypermail