> Alex Ferguson wrote:
> > I appreciate HW isn't a 'simulationist' game, but it's
> > extremely unfortunate if players are being 'incentivised' by
> > their culture to do one thing, and by their own best interests
> > (and in plot terms, those of the characters' community, too) to
> > do the opposite.
jeff.kyer:
> Would you have any suggestions to provide such incentives?
I presume you mean, opposite incentives, to do the reverse...
Yes, and I've suggested them, here. At the risk of combining two increasingly tetchy threads into one, I think magic is a case in point here, at the least in and of itself, and I suspect also as regards how it fits into combat. While as I said, Mikko's ideas for magic strike me as being a touch over-specific (though come to that, so, clearly, are theistic secrets -- didn't prove an impediment to _them_ being published...), the basic notion of certain Feats acting in certain more specific ways strikes me as sound. Calling on your cultural and personal god to smite your enemies mightly sounds to me like a pretty high-stakes ploy: success = dead enemies; failure = I dunno, a sense of doomed foreboding, divine retribution, magical failure of some kind. Or if it's really your unlucky day, he fries _you_ with one. This isn't the sort of thing I 'get' from reading the magical affinities. Might as well pop off a tiny little lightning boltlet of AP 3, instead... Or equally, zing off an arrow, for all the difference it would make.
Some sort of 'effect guidelines' would help a lot, here. Also, making clear the _different_ consequences of failing might have, other than the merely tactical. ("There's a loud silence as the thunderhead just sits there, doing nothing. You can sense the ghosts of your dead enemies around you, taunting you that Orlanth has foresaken you for the unworthy cur you are. The Black Oaks fart in your general direction...")
To return to my original topic... 'Mundane' things are less clear-cut, I admit. I'm inclined to in some crypto-mechanical way to tweak things in such a way that: a) bigger is as a rule better, and b) that the actor often has an advantage over the opponent, of some sort. This last to avoid the 'masterly inactivity' syndrome: you can in many cases actually _not act_, and either increase or at least not impair your chances of winning the contest, since your opponent will helpfully eliminate himself by acting against you, and then you winning the exchange. This may be an appropriate effective in some contests, but not, as a rule, in Thud and Blunder barbarian set-tos, as a rule. (Two that spring to mind are iaido-style duels with katana, as someone mentioned, and cricket. Batsman remains utterly still, holds his bat several feet away from the ball, watching it go past to the 'keeper. "Well played, there", intones Richie Benaud on commentary...)
One can argue that these perhaps tie up: one reason Orlanthi _do_ take flamboyant actions in combat is that they're enacting ritual/magical/emulatory 'feats' (in the normal, rather than the HW sense), which work best, or only at all, if done in a particular manner. To steal from Morden again, it's clear to me that there's no 'low risk' way to do the Sword Trick -- but _actually_ be double-bluffing and be performing some other feat, instead. Whilst at bottom a mundane action, I'm certain this is all tied up with enhancement magic that only works in certain situationalist ways, and/or heroforming.
I know I'm not being ultra-specific, here: that's why we're (hopefully) having a discussion, isn't it? I don't want to start in with the heavy-duty bolt-ons, when I may simply not be perceiving relatively simple tweaks (whether rules tweaks, game tweaks, or player tweaks ("Ow, stop that!")) that can accomplish the general effect that I am, and I suspect other people may be, looking for.
> I've been relying on the cultural ones with some success but I admit
> that in the in-store demos I run, I often find some of the new players
> tend to hide behind their shields.
I don't discount the cultural ones, but I dislike the idea that someone might end up behaving one way when there's an audience, and another when no-one is looking, or when the _outcome_ is what's important, rather than the 'style marks'. I know the Orlanthi have a braggard-streak, but that's going a touch far... (Perhaps just that it punches my 'hypocrisy' button.)
> I suspect that giving an edge for 'cool actions' would be of use and be
> related to the size of the bid, the daring of the action and .
Indeed, I suggested something very similar some time ago. One has to tread a fine line here: making it too mechanistic would be dull and unevocative, applying it too capriciously would annoy people greatly when they don't get a bonus they 'should' get.
The idea of making it an edge I like, though: previously I was thinking of a TN bonus. Makes more sense in affecting results, rather than odds, and in helping differentiate actor from opponent, which is another small niggle I have. It also avoids the traditional problem with a 'fixed' edge ("Great, I have an edge! even less reason to bid high, ever again!")
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail