>>> Agreed. This, together with some of the other things you refer to
>>> explain why I think that the techniques you (and Roderick) mentioned
>>> are necessary for characters with abilities over about 20w if GM and
>>> players are to keep an interest in the game, but (to my mind) fail
>>> altogether once you get beyond about 20w3.
>>
>
>Well I have three players with skills now in the w4 range and a couple of
>others who are close and I can tell you that it has honestly made little
>difference to the game so far. Sure it becomes harder for them to meet a
>challenge but I also find that their superiority means they take more risks
>too which makes it easier to combat them. So the techniques I was describing
>for controlling the players and providing challenges for them do not fail
>beyond 20w3 at all in my experience.
>
I have no doubt it works well for you - I just doubt whether it work for
me, knowing from past experience what sort of games I tend to enjoy and
what sort of things I tend to be able to do well.
>>> And, again, we're at needing all manner of tricks to maintain interest
>>> long before you reach 20w3 - which is why I don't see this as a low
>>> ceiling at all!
>>
>
>Well true but the point is not that it is a low ceiling, because as you say,
>it isn't, but the issue become whether it is playable at a level higher than
>that. I say it certainly is, and that HW is beautifully designed to allow
>multiple levels of play.
>
I agree completely. In fact, I think I made the point at least twice. I
just said that I personally don't think I'll enjoy it at that level, or
be able to run games at that level, and that I believed I might not be
alone in this. To make an analogy, can you really say that you'd enjoy
every conceivable campaign type that could be run in HW/Glorantha? Say,
an all-healer campaign? You prefer combat and large-scale military
strategy; I prefer low to medium power gaming. Its just a matter of
taste, not of what HW is and is not capable of.
>>> > Even at 15w2, I'd say a fyrd is beyond most groups to worry about.
>>> > Say 6 players all 15w2 in combat,
>>>
>>> Fortunately, I can't imagine any group I'd be likely to be running a
>>> game for who'd ever that many characters with such high combat skill.
>>> Unless you're counting followers, of course.
>>
>
>Some of my players are running around with 20 followers or more at 10w2.
>Some of them even have a regiment sized body that good. It is the side
>effect of power.
>
Sure. Again, this isn't the kind of game I can get particularly enthused
about, which is another reason why I (and by 'I', I don't mean
'everybody') might want to avoid higher level games where this sort of
thing becomes common.
>>> > Once players hit this level they become beyond clan politics. It
>>> > would take the tribal king, all his best priests and the local hero
>>> > to show to give them a bad day.
>>>
>>> Yes, and you could be right that in practice I'd lose interest in a
>>> game before it actually got near the 20w3 limit. But, still, as an
>>> arbitrary line in the sand, its as good as any other :-)
>>
>
>Fair enough. The only problem I see is this, and it is one I've experienced
>as a player and a narrator, once you hit a level where you think the game is
>uncontrollable you want to start again. Unfortunately given the increase
>system we have (say 4-8 HP a session) then you are looking at hitting high
>masteries after around 50 sessions and once you near 100 sessions you are
>looking at very high skills indeed. So you are doomed to always start a new
>campaign at around 50 sessions or so (perhaps less if heroquesting gains them
>powers too)
>
The chance of me getting the time to run 50 gaming sessions of anything
would be a fine thing :-(
But, leaving aside my personal circumstances, there would appear to be
two solutions to this problem. Either create house rules that result in
less HP being awarded per session, or create house rules that increase
the cost of more powerful abilities (e.g. +1 HP per mastery you already
have in the ability).
> and this means that long term campaigns at a higher level are out
>of the question - so no Kings, High Kings etc. in the party.
>
Agreed. I wouldn't personally see this as a great loss, but rather as a
necessary consequence of my gaming style. Not being interested in high
power gaming correlates quite well, I think, with not being interested
in gaming with reigning Kings in the party. But, yes, if there *is*
anybody out there who wants to play kings, and doesn't want to play w4
characters (or vice versa) you're going to have to put some tweaking in
place to ensure this.
>You CAN play high levels and still be a serious roleplayer!
>
I hope I didn't sound as if I was disagreeing with that!
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail