Re: Re: DnD4e to HQ2 (was Greetings)

From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:21:57 +0100


In message <000901cc58cb$445b47e0$cd11d7a0$_at_...>, Matthew Cole <matthew.cole_at_...> writes
>One thing I'm glad of is that, for people like Kevin, HeroQuest 1 is
>working
>really well and that they already have what they want in that respect.
>The
>only problem for them using HQ2-centric books is that they will have to
>work
>out all the skills of the opposition in their stories. Let's face it,
>in HQ1
>we had to do that anyway with HQ1 books - because the published ones
>were
>rarely compatible with our games (except, maybe right at the start -
>but
>after a game/campaign has become established, the published numbers
>began
>meaning less and less).

Putting aside Anaxial's Roster (great descriptions, silly numbers) the sort of things I'm seeking are actually reasonably static - a weapon thane in my game unless they belong to a group I know has been "heroic" will be Close Combat up to 10W and no challenge to anyone in my group including the sage (who only very occasionally puts hero points into combat).

A challenge comes with, say, how good is Kallyr (still alive in my game from various actions the players performed over the years). She's now better than her Battle of Iceland Stats in my game, but how much better? If after published data you can almost imagine a sequence of dated profiles, wince, and move on.

Looking back in scenarios I've written you'd see key characters getting refreshed numbers for their key skills.

>
>It is said that some want skill numbers so they can understand how
>tough
>challenges in Glorantha should be and that they want these numbers to
>come
>from the publishers. I'm confused! We can decide from the prose (or
>even any
>of the art) of published Gloranthan material (including all previously
>released stuff, right back to White Bear, Red Moon!) just how
>challenging
>each conflict should be in the context of our stories: if a king is
>described as mighty and our story already knows that he can't act
>freely due
>to politics, we can easily arrive at a difficulty (there are only five
>to
>choose from: Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High) that suits the
>feeling 'round the table for the situation. This can be done in game
>flow
>without stopping to find published numbers. I've heard that a few
>people
>don't want to do this but I really don't understand the difficulty (if
>you
>want to enlighten me, please focus on what the problem is doing what I
>suggest) - unless it's a confidence thing? I know I found a confidence
>barrier when I first tried.

It may differ for others, but my desire is for, in a campaign, for the numbers assigned to player skills to be meaningful. If the players know, to take the above example, a standard weapon thane will be up to 10W in close combat, then as their skill ticks above that, they will know exactly where they are. If it's all relative, how do they know how many hero points to invest over how many games to get to the point they are equal to the top end of weapon thanes?

Easy to critique from a "show don't tell" point of view (they find they are better when they challenge a thane and trash them) but for a start my players (many players?) want to know up front. Furthermore, they would not unreasonably claim they'd pick up on lots of little cues about relative skill levels without a direct challenge.

For a one-off or short-run game, then I can well see relative being the way to go.

A point of curiosity - I'm guessing in games using the relative system that many players hold a lot of hero points in store for bumps, or create new skills, and put relatively little into improving skills. I'm also guessing this could cause things to break down real fast if you've got mini-maxers or other forms of power-gamers.

There's also issues with players who project their character as much more powerful than the underlying numbers would show - its not even deceitful, especially not when boasting is an Orlanthi trait. But for the GM its an issue - they may set the relative difficulty from the boast rather than the numbers.

-- 
Kevin Blackburn                         Kevin_at_...

Powered by hypermail