Re: Re: DnD4e to HQ2 (was Greetings)

From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:32:30 +0100

In message <65C4BF43-BF3A-46D8-BA54-E3D503AF9946_at_...>, David Dunham <david_at_...> writes
> 
>
>On 6 Aug 2011, at 07:36, Santo Sengupta wrote:
>
>> But the simulationist side of me did enjoy trying to puzzle out mastery
>> ratings for various creatures, and trying at least in my own head to
>create
>> a "scale" for Glorantha.
>
>I think you could get away with doing that if you didn't plan on running a
>long campaign. Jeff's Orlmarth Campaign had characters ending up at W3
>or even W4. If you plan ahead to end the campaign at a point when
>characters wouldn't have increased more than 1W, you might be able to
>get away with this.
>
>(Even then, adjusting difficulty will typically result in a more fun story
>overall.)

Well my HeroQuest campaign (with a smattering of HQ1 and no trace of HQ2) happily potters along with character skills in the low W5's, after 316 sessions. And a tradition of multiple augments. They just aren't fighting monsters any more, but other heroes or are off on the hero (or even god) planes, or being major players in politics. One real challenge for the players is the sense of the fragility of reality - that if they get too carried away important things start to break or gifts get given.

Returning to the topic, HQ2 relativity in skills I found a barrier to even completing reading the book, it's so against how I want to run games, in much the same way making runes the only important thing and moving away from the gods being defined by their stories made me give up on Sartar KoH, it was so against what attracted me to HeroQuest/Thunder Rebels/Storm Tribes.

-- 
Kevin Blackburn                         Kevin_at_...