> As an example, if you are travelling incognito the same bunch of
> bandits jumps you regardless of your abilities. Early in a campaign
> this is a big thing, later on its a "roll just in case you embarrass
> yourselves". The presence of the bandits can be important, saying
> something about the lands.
With the 20/20 hindsight of having played and GM'd in a long high-level campaign, I'd say that it's actually vital that bandits et al. have constant skill levels throughout the campaign : it's something we didn't do, and eventually it was the constant power inflation that killed the campaign, although the game system also broke down irretrievably beyond a certain point.
Judicious use of massed abilities / group support rules can really be useful to encourage healthy longevity in HW/HQ campaigns : you might be 10W3 at CC, but 188 enemy warriors is a LOT of people to defeat all on one go ...
> The technical use of Close Combat clearly
> occurred. But do the players get to count it?
If it wasn't an important story element, then definitely not !
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail