Re: Followers

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:31:31 -0700


Benedict

> In a traditional RPG, the party of characters is partly bound
> together by the different abilities of each character: only as a team
> do they have all the abilities needed. A hero (HW character) with
> several followers, however, has less need for hero companions, since
> the followers can provide the abilities the hero lacks. In extreme
> examples, the other players in a session can be superfluous.

Followers correspond to non-speaking extras. In extreme cases, they get a few lines. Players should be providing all the motivation in the game.

> Followers can be very able; this further reduces the binding of
> characters into a party. For example, the player of our warrior hero
> chose interesting, non warrior, abilities as his best (5W) and second
> bast (2 X 1W) abilities, and so his warrior abilities are still at
> 17. The player of our merchant hero has a couple of warrior
> bodyguards, and has spent a hero point on improving his best ability,
> so his body guards are now the best fighters in the party, with 18
> ratings.

I don't see anything wrong with the setup (unless your narrator or the players are picking situations that involve nothing but combat).

> Are followers, as per the rules, too unbalancing?

We never found them to be so.

One way of looking at them is a more interesting way of justifying abilities. Rather than saying "Harrek has an uncanny knack for bursting into song after battle" you say "Harrek is followed by Andug, a bard who commemorates his victories in song." Either way Harrek's player has access to the Sing ability, but the latter allows for more story possibilities.

Wulf disagrees

> They certainly CAN be, yes. My Shaman (whomever it is she worships...)
> can have up to FIVE Followers (I usually just take a couple on any
> journey), her AP total can top 100, ensuring she almost always acts
> first in an exchange.

5 followers who all have relevant abilities? That certainly doesn't fit the diversification model above, instead it's an amplification model. If a narrator feels this is abusive, she should be sure to impose penalties on followers who are forced out of contests (remember that if you lose 15 AP, this reflects a follower going to 0 or below, which can have consequences).

In the rules mechanics, AP aren't as useful as target number in winning contests, so this isn't as unbalanced as it might seem.

The one problem that might exist is the way follower advancement is tied to a single hero ability.

> They have personality (and a 25-word
> writeup apiece), and don't usually just make my character invulnerable
> to AP loss. If followers are too important and do too much, the hero
> shouldn't be rewarded for actions he/she hasn't actually done.

A 25 word writeup is nice, but a narrator is also free to point out that followers have two helpful abilities according to the rules (admittedly one might be a keyword), and could pare things down by enforcing this.

Reducing hero point awards is reasonable too (just don't give them to the followers!).

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