> > This *is* a question of gaming style, though ...
>
> No it most definitely is _not_,
'tis !
ie should the HW rules system (designed Robin Laws-wise around a gaming style) keep the current balance of loose "dramatic" style over a roolzy one ; or should the balance be shifted somewhat ; or should the rules system present a number of optional rules allowing each GM to mix 'n' match according to taste ?
Which gaming style should HW encourage ?
(keeping the current state of the RPG market in mind, and the desire to make HW more popular and more profitable, without dumbing it down)
> it's a question of Hero Point economics. If
> the basic skills (that most will want to improve) cost more, characters will
> on the average have fewer abilities that they're any good at. Unless you
> start escalating HP awards.
I am attracted by the idea of a mechanic to encourage a smaller number of skills on the average HW character sheet.
I like the idea that HW characters should be encouraged to specialise : I really hate the old RQ2-style jack-of-all-trades adventurer.
I'd only like the idea of "Broad Skills" provided they didn't turn into the RQ Skills Categories in disguise.
It would be an important change in the rules, and shouldn't be implemented lightly ...
... but I don't think there's any getting rid of the idea. It needs to be dealt with, somehow.
> >> I think most abilities have the potential to be
> >> useful in most situations if you use your imagination.
> >
> > I don't agree with your appraisal ; I can't see that the new system would be
> > more limiting than the old one. I personally prefer the new.
>
> It's more limiting because the implication is that abilities which aren't
> "broad", that you haven't paid the increased cost for, should have a
> "narrow" utility. It's telling the narrator to say "no" to more proposed
> uses of these supposedly narrow abilities.
Well, I personally wouldn't have any problem with that, but HW2 should, yes, be directed at a wider audience than HW1, so the needs of the newbies do need to be taken into account.
Perhaps a little boxed section entitled "Never Say No To Creativity !" or some such ?
Anyway, if the proposal were retained, the improvisation rules would need to be rewritten to take the new system into account ; new explanations in the improvisation rules could perhaps help players and narrators to be creative. Also, if characters had fewer skills on their character sheets, then players would actually have to be *more* creative with their characters, not less !
> > Similar even to my RQ house rules, which makes it *that* much easier for me to
> > use HW instead.
>
> I don't feel that making HW more like RQ would be an improvement.
Erm, as a SEMI-grognard, I actually prefer to make RQ more like HW ...
So yeah, I agree with you !
Anyway, as long as there's no short list of lovingly described HW skills, including every detail of all their possible uses in the game, I don't think there's much danger of HW suddenly turning into new RQ.
> >> Besides, even under the proposed system, the wannabee-combat monster will
>
> > This isn't *just* about combat ; presumably a devotee could also improve a
> > single Feat within an Affinity by +1 for 1 HP, etc...
>
> Yes, but I fail to see much point in it. I can't think of any single feat I
> prefer that much over others. Still, if you really want that kind of
> specialization you could add it to the magic rules without disturbing the
> rest of the system.
No you can't ; having that kind of specialisation simply *does* disturb the system, quite profoundly, and the other rules need to be adapted to make space for this new idea.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think this is one cat that's not going to be climbing back into the bag. This specialisation idea is a natural development from the game system, and simply *needs* to be addressed by the rules text.
> OTOH, I do see the argument for why affinities should cost more. Some of
> them allow you to do much more than similar mundane abilities. For example,
> Movement can replace all of your skills at Running, Jumping, Climbing,
> Swimming, Sky-diving... ummm, well you get the picture.
Changing subject a little ? Well, OK !
TR and ST seem to suggest that the titles of the affinities are a bit misleading ; that the "Movement" affinity of this god isn't really the same as the "Movement" affinity of that one. Something else that HW2 could make clearer ?
I would certainly discourage such over-use of "broad" affinities ...
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail