Re: Follower Tweaks Re: Sundry rules questions for demo

From: Graham Robinson <gjr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0000 (GMT)


On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, JEFFREY KYER wrote:

> > I don't like the follower rules either - partly because they end up
> a
> > bit too weak in comparison with the rest of the world. Anyway, I
> allow
>
> Actually, this is not quite the case -- for a starting hero, the two
> keywords are 17 and 13 respectively. These are the exact same default
> levels that all heroes start their keywords and "freebies" at.
>
> This makes them starting "level" (god how I hate that phrase!)
> characters....
>

Nope. Players start with their BEST skill 8 above their follower's BEST skill. That's hardly level.

And I said "in comparison with the rest of the world" not "with the players". It seems a bit harsh to insist they MUST have warriors who wouldn't make weaponthane and struggle to stand out in the fyrd.

> I think that making a follower's keyword that high is wise -- what
> your friends really want in that case is an _Ally_ at a high level.
> Take Joe Blow as an Ally at the level you require as he's going to be
> as tough as you and show up frequently -- with the 1w or 5w you've
> used.
>

(I assume Jeff means "unwise" above...)

Unless they want a follower... An ally is a substantially less useful relationship. Sure you can get more powerful help, but far less often. At least in my games.

> What your homebrew does is gives the hero access to a keyword at a
> higher level than his own!

Yep, that's right.

> That's not quite right.

Why? Its the player's choice if they want to spend their precious starting bump ups or hero points on a skill they only have access to part of the time, why not? Most won't do it, but two of the players wanted to have powerful followers (both starting at 2W) I allowed it, everyone's happy. So what? Gives the players more control of the characters with very little cost in my game.

> And with the
> follower automatically going up at a rate being -8/-12 of the
> character's highest. Unless you don't raise them until the
> character's highest ability is at that 1w or 5w level.
>

Not quite sure what you mean here...

> But... they are _followers_ not leaders. Henchmen, spearcarriers,
> redshirts and friends of the hero. They shouldn't be as good as they
> are.
>

And most of them will be. Spending hero points on followers is expensive, and not something to do for all of them.

> > sheet. I then allow followers to be improved by spending hero
> points. I
> > don't allow automatic increases in skills otherwise. If a follower
> dies,
> > their replacement is of 'similar' level to the lost one.
>
> I suppose. It seems like it rather limits followers. And at the
> higher end of the game, decent followers are essential to survival.
> Every hero has his supporting band, afterall.
>

Not sure I'm ever going to be playing at the high end of the game. I'll worry about it if (when) it happens. Anyway, there's nothing in here to prevent people having lots of followers, just gives them the ability to single out special ones from the 'faceless horde'.

As I said, though, the main objection to this one is the hero point cost. I don't use the cementing items rule or make the heroes pay for relationships which arise naturally during play, so the players have an extra point or two each session to play with. Making them think about their followers is a way of using them up.

It is, however, not for everyone.

Cheers,
Graham

-- 
Graham Robinson			The Stable Yard - Internet Solutions
gjr_at_...		http://www.thestableyard.net

Powered by hypermail