Re: followers

From: David Dunham <dunham_at_...>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:34:24 -0700


Wulf asked

> what's the difference between a low-ability ally and a follower?

The way I run things, followers are almost never capable of independent action. You can send your follower off on errands, but they're not going to show as much initiative. If you want someone to negotiate on your behalf, an ally is more important.

> The idea of 'expendable' and
> replaceable followers seems to me very un-Heroic. Surely even the
> most callous and dedicated Hero thinks more of his men than just
> "Damn... lost another two! Oh, well, there's plenty more where they
> came from...",

Of course heroes don't. But this is a narrative convention. Heck, last night I read an African epic (complete with genealogies) where one of the important characters is never named (except as somebody's brother). The action focuses on the heroes, and followers are minor supporting characters.

The replaceability is in game terms. If the game kills off followers, then you shouldn't be overly penalized by this fact.

> and as such they should have more than just two words
> of description. The rules allow use of keywords, which is a good
> help, but it doesn't work for animals - and there's more to even a
> horse than Strong and Run!

But followers die off at a much faster rate than heroes. It's a waste of time to get into too much detail (I've had this problem with GURPS, by the way -- a painstakingly spreadsheeted follower was executed due to the plot; what a huge pain as a player!).

Arguably, "horse" *is* a keyword, since it implies a range of abilities.

David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Powered by hypermail