> I think this is what most Narrators do already, so it could be
> codified in the rules. (I wouldn't apply this to use in augmenting,
> but then we're only talking about the *default* improvisational
> modifier, and Narrators are always free to impose more suitable
> modifiers depending on the situation.)
This is what I've been doing... and with no difficulties. I must admit, though, that while I use improv modifiers as I see fit I tend to ignore what was codified in the rules and just go with my gut (up to a -40 one time.)
> I have "Powerfully Built" -- don't think I've ever used it.
Two of my characters have "Strong." They just use it to enhance combat skills.
> That's the delightfully generic Close Combat...
>
> Which is probably the touchstone of the divide here. If you think a
> roleplaying game needs more combat skills, you probably want to add
> more skills everywhere. If you see no need for more combat rules
> gunking up your perfectly good stories, you see no need for more
> skill rules elsewhere.
>
> I think the Hero Wars rules philosophy is soundly in the second camp,
> and trying to change it will result in a game likely to satisfy
> nobody, because it will be a game with no guiding principles.
A hearty amen to this. I think that one recurrent theme both in this conversation and in the earlier thread about the "Stop Time" ability is that Hero Wars requires a different philosophy (as you said) and also imposes a responsibility on both narrator and player to move beyond the minimaxing, rules-lawyering, and conflict between "gamemaster" and player that characterize most RPGs (and which is so well captured in "Knights of the Dinner Table"- rush out and buy if you don't already.) Compromising that would really destroy what has attracted me to this game.
Yes, it is good for the game to have wide appeal; but as politics often demonstrates- trying to be everything to everybody usually means being nothing at all!
Gerald
Powered by hypermail