> >There are two separate mechanisms that allow a lower rated
> >character
> >to take part in a contest with a higher rated character versus an
> >equally higher rated opposition (or an even higher rated
> > opposition).
> >
> >1 - the low rated character can lend APs to the higher rated
> >character.
> >2 - the low rated character can attempt to augment the higher
> >rated character.
>
> And both are fine mechanism for that role. Neither, however,
> offer a great deal of long term fun for a player if thats what you
> do every session, I suspect. In both cases, real effect on the
> contest is relatively marginal compared to successfully acting in
> your own right.
The occasions when I have used AP-lending, it has been extra-
ordinarily effective.
> >Expecting every character to be able to directly act against every
> >opponent in every contest is not, IMO, reasonable. But most of the
> >time, all characters should be able to take part using the above
> >mentioned support mechanisms.
> >
> >I understand that, in part, I have taken your quote out of context
> >but, in the heat of your argument on sorcery being unbalanced in
> >relationship to theism, you make an unjustified sweeping
> >generalisation.
>
> Its not a sweeping generalisation, its a typical case.
In your oppinion!
> Yes,
> there will be situations where particular characters are either the
> focus or particularly useless. Thats good.
> Its when those situations are the default, standard, ones
> that it becomes a problem. Its good when your characters have
> different skills and shine in different situations. Its bad when,
> in situations that are supposed to be typical threats for the whole
> party to overcome, disparities in power levels force them to be
> focussed on one or two.
> Its bad, for example, if you have a whole party that are
> supposed to be competent warriors, but one of them is so much
> better than the others that there is no point in others taking a
> direct part in the contest. Its bad when your character that is
> supposed to be a magic specialist has an ability level so much
> lower than the average that they can not effectively participate
> in contests of magic, for example - the likely result of long term
> play of a sorcerer PC.
In our group, we have characters who specialise in different things.
My character has a combat skill of 14. The best rating (in any
ability) in the group is around 13W. Despite this, my character is
quite effective in combat because he has followers that give him APs
and also I _think_ before blindly attacking. It gives me great
satisfaction when I help turn a combat in our favour even if I never
act directly against the opposition.
> Game balance is about maintaining a rough equilibrium, which
> we can cheerfully depart from for interesting narrative and
> dramatic effect. But the dramatic effect is lost (along with much
> of the enjoyment of the campaign, most likely), if the equilibrium
> is always wrong.
IMO game balance is more a question of ensuring that each
player/character gets a significant chance to contribute in their own
unique way. In part, this is up to the players to choose character
types that are not clones of one another. But mostly, it is up to
the narrator to ensure that, over the course of a campaign (rather
than in the course of a single session) that everyone gets their 15
minutes of fame. This is not a game system (never mind a Hero Wars
system) but a player and narrator gamming style issue.
You may be correct that at a micro rules level, sorcerers are weak. But I have a suspicion that, once Sorcerer Knights is published, you will see that the social and religious system gives an individual sorcerer huge community backing in their spell casting. The only thing that allows the theists to resist this is their better access to quest challenges. Never mind the changes that HW2 brings.
regards,
Charles
Powered by hypermail