Why I think other people tend to have masteries too:
Because your characters are going to be getting experience. Maybe they will only be getting 50 hp instead of the 110 I've gotten in the last 20 sessions. To assume the rest of the world is built on 0..10 heropoints makes the characters overly freaky. So I'm also arguing over your distribution.
I'd rather they be doing better, yes, but it's more of a case of them having a higher distribution of skill increases being put into heroic skills instead of stuff like farming... which makes enough food for the hero I am, to eat. So personally, I see more masteries out there. Just in things like farming, trade, leading the tribe, and delight wife.
On the subject of tightening the mastery levels, compressing them down:
Now, if nobody gets any 'hero points' and the only difference between a hero and your farmer is that he got the sword instead of the plow. (Poor fellow got ripped off in the will) then sure, enjoy it.
I think your game would make followers far more important, because you'll likely be making it harder to buy up a skill to a heroic level, so a follower is more important. Even if they get wasted with crossbows all the time.
Anyways, I'm sure we can argue all day over how big the dynamic range of skills should be. I like it a bit bigger, you seem to like it small. I just think you're going to find experience and buying up skills may be broken. This because then the humakti with his 5w skill and his +5 geased gift to close combat is going to waste everybody else.
By making things smaller, you're likely amplifying massively the effect of other small things like edges, geases, single masteries, followers, improvisation penalties and making heropoints far far more brutally dear. Maybe this gives you the Glorantha you want, or maybe not.
Steven White
Powered by hypermail