> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Mass combat and collective ratings.
>
> Brian Laxson:
> > Okay... here is a question. You have spearmen with a skill of 17. Do you bring
> 10 or 100?
> >
> > The "pure" rules in the book give you 17 AP for 10 and 17 AP for 100.
>
> No, that's not right. (Or at least, unless I misunderstand or
> misremember them!) They give you 170 AP, and 1700 AP, respectively.
> (Isn't that 'em, lads?) Also in line with the rules for followers.
>
Ah.... cheez... 1700 AP. Well that is one way to do it.
However, without adjusting the skill factors I could expect Agnar at 6w2 sword and shield to run up to those 1700 AP and soak it up into transfers onto himself. Unless you pile those 1700AP onto the elite fighters which would probably be the case.
The alternative rules effecitevly allow you to choose whether each group will act like a follower (adding AP) or as an ally (augmenting your skill). It also lowers down the amount of AP involved.
BTW, most of the extensive setup can be done outside the game session. A narrator could run a "gathering allies" type adventure and make some rolls before hand to see what augments or AP adds will occur. Then in session the narrator adds on the allies that do actually show up.
Brian Laxson
Agnar, Patrol Leader
>
> > > As are the existing HW rules. In both cases, though, one would
> > > want to apply common sense: one guy with a TN of 4W4 and 1000
> > > guys at 14 should _not_ be treated as 14W4+augments/1084, would be
> > > my off the top of my head guess...
> > >
> >
> > The issue of "what is the minimium?" for that starter skill is something that
> isn't yet
> > fully sorted out. I agree that one guy 4w4 backed by a horde should get his
> skill and the
> > horde's damage soaking ability. hmmm... for my submission you could say that
> scaling
> > factor (typcially 5) is the minimium number needed to count for skills.
>
> Not a bad idea. One can finesse this by saying it's determined
> by the 'doctrine' of each partioculat 'troop type', so as to give
> a handy deus ex machina, though that doesn't help the poor GM too
> much.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:32:11 -0000
> From: "markmohrfield " <markmohrfield_at_...>
> Subject: Misapplied worship costs
>
> I just noticed that the costs for misapplied worship don't seem
> to be
> consistent, some of the examples seem to indicate that the multiplier
> is applied to the worshipper's system, while some indicate that
> it is
> applied to the system of the entity being worshipped. For instance
> the example of theists worshiping a Sorcerous entity on page 247 pay
> two times the cost of an affinity to gain the Flaming Sword affinity,
> while on pages 248-249 sorcerous worshippers of a theistic being gain
> a grimoire, but still pay the cost of an affinity (multiplied by
> three this time), not of a grimoire. Which one of these is incorrect?
>
>
> Mark Mohrfield
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:28:17 +0200
> From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
> Subject: Re: AP example
>
> Alex :
>
> > Me > > Not if you believe Gygax' early articles (reprinted in in Best Of Dragon
> > > > IIRC). He described them pretty much as a mechanic to simulate a PC's
> > > > ability to *avoid* being wounded ...
> > >
> > > Which it entirely fails to do, of course.
>
> Yep !! ;-)
>
> > > AD&D hit points are a classic example of 'more effort
> > > spend on rationalising the duff rule we have, than thinking
> > > of a better one'.
>
> Certainly !!
>
> But IMO such "a mechanic to simulate a PC's ability to *avoid* being wounded", as
> described by Gygax in his writings (but not in his rules systems), is basically a
> good idea. My point here is simply to offer food for thought to anyone who wants to
> adapt cool HW rules stuff to Simulationist rules systems : from this POV, APs and HPs
> are not so far apart as they initially appear ...
>
> Well ; not much more to be said on that subject ...
>
> cheers,
>
> Julian Lord
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:56:40 +0200
> From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Misapplied worship costs
>
> Mark Mohrfield :
>
> > I just noticed that the costs for misapplied worship don't seem
> > to be consistent, some of the examples seem to indicate that
> > the multiplier is applied to the worshipper's system, while some
> > indicate that it is applied to the system of the entity being
> > worshipped.
>
> Nick and I discussed this, at some length :
>
> What we've come up with is :
>
> "Each character or culture should pick just one philosophy of magic. Any magic
> from outside that philosophy costs double, whether you learn it the way it
> should be learned originally, or according to the methods of your own
> philosophy. Extraordinary cases exist."
>
> Anything beyond that is up to the Narrator ; or anyone who wants to waste
> time coming up with something more precise and more orthodoxly GL-ish.
>
> cheers,
>
> Julian Lord
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:09:53 +0200
> From: "Alexandre Lanciani" <alexanl_at_...>
> Subject: Re: multiple attacks
>
> Philip Hibbs:
>
> > No, you are risking X APs in order to deplete the opposition by X APs. If
> > they were each knocked down by X, then that would make it more
> > effective in
> > many circumstances to attack two at once than one at a time, as you are
> > risking X in order to achieve 2X. A fair criticism would be that
> > penalising
> > by 3 per extra opponent *and* using the highest opposing roll is making it
> > harder by two different mechanisms, which strikes me as a possible design
> > error.
>
> Do you mean that you are penalized twice even though you are aiming at the
> same net result? Something must be eluding me...
>
> On the contrary, if you resolve each attack separately you have a wider
> range of outcomes, of which only one would be risk X and achieve 2X. You can
> lose 2X, lose X and an opponent loses X, both opponents lose X (net effect
> achieve 2X) and so on... Seems to me more interesting and sensible.
>
> Anyway, suppose that I want to use the rule as it is written (after all if
> I run a demo I can't use my HR, can't I?). Are edges (such as weapon ranks)
> added after the split or before? And handicaps? Especially armor ranks,
> which could be different between the two opponents (this could be a FAQ, as
> the multiple attack rule is not so clear IMO).
>
> Thom:
>
> > I just feel one exchange equals roughly one blow/arrow etc.
>
> If this is your opinion then it's certainly fine for me, but I don't think
> that one (armed) exchange equals one blow/arrow no more than a (verbal)
> exchange equals one word!
>
> Cheers,
> An eluding Alex.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:10:00 +0200
> From: "Alexandre Lanciani" <alexanl_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Online gaming rules
>
> Richard Sands:
>
> > I've seen from the Glorantha web page that there appear to be plans to
> > post rules for handling online games - since I plan on starting one up
> > in the near future, I was wondering if anyone had any preliminary
> > version of such rules? Or if anyone was running such a game already, and
> > what rules they were using?
>
> Do you mean rules for running an online game or adaptations of HW's rules
> to online gaming?
>
> I am running a PBeM with the HW rules, but so far it's been mainly
> "chatting", so rules have not mattered much. Anyway I think that, given HW's
> (dare I say it?) rather freeform approach and narrative emphasis, there
> should be no problem when we get into a situation which requires a little
> more structure.
>
> Cheers,
> An unstructured Alex.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
Powered by hypermail