> >For comparison, tbe longest gaming campaign I have ever been in ran
> >to about 35 sessions, and the longest I've ever succeeded in running
> >was about 30.
The longest campaign I've ever been involved with probably lasted for about 500 - 600 sessions (with sometimes up to about 10 sessions/week), so I'm naturally sensitive to these issues ... :-)
> I'd advise anyone hoping for a long campaign to throw in a
> house rule of '1hp for each mastery in a skill'.
Wooh, careful ! Tread these waters lightly, lest you be accused of evil simulationist number-crunching !! ;-)
More seriously : excellent rule !
> That'll get you to
> 1W2 and being a mover and shaker pretty quick, but stop you reaching
> the point where only Orlanth and Rufelza themselves are a challenge.
Delay rather than stop ...
I'd assume that in real terms player heroes IYG develop many skills as opposed to focussing on their specialities : am I right ? If so, how has it affected the game ?
Wouldn't it encourage the jack-of-all-trades type of PC so prevalent in RQ2 ?
> Wish I had placed that rule from the start. Instead, we opted for a
> voluntary 10W3 ceiling (unless you heroquest for better) which I don't
> like, but the players feel is fairer.
I think you're correct not to like it. Still, if that's what your players want, more power to them ...
> It isn't the W3 and W4 characters that worry me, its the W6 and W7
> that I could have in a couple of years time...
>From what little I've seen, I think HQ will do a better job than HW at handling high level play, and presenting a playable framework
of power levels. Not that HW did a _bad_ job, to the contrary ... :-)
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail