>I really like trying to involve the players in
>defining more of the world around them.
Yes... saves us Narrators all that extra work. :)
>There was an article on Pyramid... which talked
>about having players take the personas of NPCs
>too!
We used this to great effect in Michael Trout's late, lamented PENDRAGON campaign, and beyond just the "squire pool" notion. Several players eventually "acquired" a number of behind-the-scenes characters whose schemes and intrigues they were responsible for developing outside of play, and whom they were occasionally called upon to portray when the player-knights chose to confront them directly.
>I think the problem may be that a single-keyword
>*follower* becomes much more like an *ally*.
Except the ability scores of an Ally will always be much higher than those of a Follower. I see no problem with supporting characters receiving more abilities. It lends them much more color, which is what I am after.
Most game systems (HERO WARS included) tend to skimp on the number of skills made available to characters. Honestly, I wonder if I should allow player-heroes 150 words instead of 100, so strong is my feeling on the subject. I tend to encourage players to choose less-broadly defined abilities, though, so it rarely becomes a problem.
Benedict Adamson wrote:
>OTT for followers, who are meant to be faceless
>red-shirts.
Except that, from myth, we have Orlanth's own Followers listed variably as Finovan, Helamakt, Hedkoranth and Enferalda, or as Humakt, Elmal, Ohorlanth and Heler (see "The Four Storms" on page 169 of THUNDER REBELS) . Faceless red-shirts all, you say? Think again...
>In my campaign, perhaps misunderstanding the
>rules, allies and patrons have a full 100-word
>write-up, usually produced in conjunction with
>the Narrator.
I concur that Allies and Patrons demand more words than a Follower, but I am fond of the idea of limiting the player to 25 words worth of input on each supporting character, period. Total words for a supporting character should be:
25 for a Follower or Dependent (full player control)
50 for a Companion* (1/2 player control)
100 for an Ally (1/4 player control)
150+ for a Patron (1/6 player control or less)
>Not even if the item is a Swiss Army Knife.
A Swiss Army knife is mundane, and would not merit mention in a hero's narrative.
>This makes named items a means for expanding your
>initial list of abilities in 25 word chunks.
I don't see a problem with that, as I trust my players to have a sense of proportion. Named items are objects with magic and a history, like Orlanth's mailcoat Turnspear, Hedkoranth's thunderstone Great Weighty or Humakt's sword Death. These are objects which the players will fully expect to have impact on their heroes' stories, and as such merit more description.
>Since you can introduce an named item in 3 words, a
>player could in effect have an 800-word write up.
Except that would be ludicrous, and no Narrator in their right mind would allow it. Also, a player who made nothing more than a list of named items would be violating the letter of the narrative method as well as the spirit. Reread page 18 of HERO WARS and you may recall that. Upon consideration, though, perhaps I would a player to compose such a list for his or her hero to provide an object lesson... but I am exceedingly cruel that way. :)
"Sure, you have all those items. Where do you have them all stowed? All your scores in using their abilities are 13, by the way, and they can only confer enhancements rather than direct ability. Yes, this means that your magic sword with 'Close Combat' gives you a +1 augment to your default Close Combat score of *six*. Oops. You can use one weapon in each hand, so that gives you a modified score of eight. Double oops. Sure you won't reconsider?"
-- Michael Richard Schwartz | Language is my playground, mschwartz_at_... | and words, its slides and Ann Arbor, Michigan USA | swingsets. -- yours truly
Powered by hypermail