I think there is a lot of point missing going on here, as I think you are objecting more to what you think Benedict is saying than what he is actually saying, or at least what I think he is saying - Or maybe I'm missing your point…
>Most importantly, the GM must not mislead the players. (For those
>who mis-read that, note that I said players. Not characters.
>Characters should be mislead regularly.) This means that if the
>players have developed a certain expectation about the world, based
>on your previous stories, this expectation should not be routinely
>dismissed. Challenging expectations is the source of good stories,
>but changing expectations for meta game reasons is not.
>To my mind, the core of this is having a consistent world. A
>mountain should be equally difficult to climb every time - I doubt
>anyone is arguing otherwise - but so should the abilities of people.
Well, We could argue otherwise - the Weather, for one thing, will make it easier to climb a mountain on one day than another, as will the route taken, but generally yes, the resistance of any given obstacle should be consistent regardless of the abilities of the characters, and yes this includes the abilities of other people, for the most part.* That's why we say that the typical clan champion has a weapon skill of 10w2, not "your best skill +5w"). When Benedict says that the challenges are relative to the abilities of the pc's you seem to be assuming that when the characters get to 10w2 then the Clan Champion will have risen to 15w3, and when the characters get to 18w3 the Champion will be at 3w5 and so on, whereas I assumed he meant that when the pc's have close combat abilities of 18w3 then their adventures should not consist of beating up Clan Champions any more than starting characters would be expected to go head to head with Harrek.
At least one element of a Role-playing game is to do with overcoming challenges. That means that contests have to be (a) challenging and (b) winnable, and that holds true just as much for a "farmers" campaign as it does for one where the characters are looking to become Argrath, or one where Argrath is merely a follower.
>Now, an important decision is how fast you wish to progress through
>this. This isn't a decision for the GM alone - the players must also
>want to tell the same stories, and where their characters will end
>on this scale directly impacts on their area of control. Having made
>this decision, and with some idea of how long the campaign will
>last, you need to decide how to control the rate of progress.
I'm sure some people do this. I'm equally sure other people start at the beginning and stop either when external forces break up the game, or "it ceases being fun" for either the GM or the Players - which is probably related to the levels of skills and the appropriate challenges. If you want to play in/run a "clan based" game and your characters are at the Super-hero beating, World changing level then it's highly likely that you will not be getting what you want/expect out of the game. (The same is also true in reverse, of course. If you want to play in a sperhero-beating, world changing game and your characters are stating out with the best skill 5W then it's likely to take you a time to get where you want to be…)
>The combination of the players' choices, and the HW rules provide a
>default rate of advancement. This might fit in with the progress you
>(as a group) want to make. If so, great. If not, you have two
>choices. I've suggested changing the rules so that the HP cost of
>improving a skill reflects the impact it has on the campaign. To me
>this is the obvious solution. Benedict has suggested using the game
>to encourage players to spend their hero points more broadly. I
>think this is wrong, and I'll try to explain why.
Again, this is not quite how I understood Benedict. Rather than "...using the game to encourage…", I understood him to be saying that a game that tests characters on a range of skills will tend to lead to players not overly specialising. - This seems to be little more than common sense to me, and fits in with the general advice that the group gives to anyone worried about the player who concentrates all his HP in one ability, - Test him in another ability that he hasn't improved.
>By guiding the players choices through the stories you choose to
>tell, you are breaking two meta-rules I consider important to good
>GMing. First, you are choosing stories for meta-game reasons, not
>for their inherent interest.
I'd say you are keeping stories interesting by varying the themes and types of story. A good combat scenario can be cathartic, and get the adrenaline flowing. A whole campaign which is nothing but one combat after another can become a little stale.
>Secondly, you are infringing on the players area of
>control - their character. Instead of telling a joint story of
>heroes challenged by their opponents, this is the GM challenging the
>player because of the player's choices. Again, I suspect Benedict
>has never done this, but it is the point of his essay.
If you are going to tell a story of heroes challenged by their opponents you need to take account of the players choices, how else do you ensure it's a challenge ("The chief will reward any man that can swim across Skyfall Lake, which has a resistance of 18W….. What do you mean, you have 'Swim like a fish 12W3?'").
Now it is undoubtedly true that players will put points into skills they either think are useful, or want to be able to use, (if only to show off). So in some ways it is "unfair" of the GM to ignore "Relationship to Clan" for 12 months then suddenly make it pivotal, forcing them to use ratings of 13 rather than their "best skills" with a High mastery or two, just as it is unfair to never give the character who spends points every session on "Play Bagpipes" the chance to unleash a tune or two…
>A final point. Benedict makes two assumptions that aren't true in my
>campaign, and I suspect many others. Firstly, he assumes that the
>players measure their characters against each other. In my
>experience, players are more likely to measure their characters
>against the world.
But the other characters are part of the world. And if it is "the best trader" who gets to cut the deal, or "the best debater" who gets to argue the point (and thus get the "spotlight" for that scene) then being the best in the group is a legitimate (and achievable) aim.
>Secondly, he assumes that each character should be well rounded in
>isolation, or that a character can be challenged in isolation. Role
>playing is a group activity, and I find it rare to tell stories
>where a given character is isolated for long. The party will tend to
>support each other, with one character's weakness being made up for
>by another's complimentary strength. Something I suspect will be
>encouraged by the greater emphasis on hero bands that will
>apparently be in HQ.
This is undoubtedly true too, and is a good thing (by and large).
(Although note Simon Bray's post the other day (might have been to HWrules
?) that his group's default approach is to split up the
party….). However, it is nearly always possible to challenge a party
member first, even if they need to rely on their colleagues to help
(or rescue?) them. Wait for "the expert" to be doing his thing then
hit them with another, similar challenge at the same time - the
second challenge might be someone that you wouldn't even roll for if
the expert was here, but as he isn't…?
(The sage is following up leads in the temple and the merchant is
haggling over prices in the market. Treasure Trove Hurbi approaches
the warrior and offers to sell him a map of just where they are going
in the Rubble at a good price, but if he doesn't take it now he will
find another buyer. Or while the Weaponthane is charging the Dark
Troll, the Trollkin have snuck up on the Fyrd members.)
Powered by hypermail