I thought I would have a crack at your concerns, I apologise in advance if I am missing the point or not addressing your points in the way that you may find useful;
Any game that I have GM'd has been underpinned by the philosophy you refer to above.
> But if you're going to have a system,
> it should mean something.
Thats for sure!
> I always thought that it
> was a good thing to become a Wind Lord.
This begs the question - do we mean HQ Wind Lord or the Runequest Version, which is fundementally really a Devotee (Although the two are not really compatible anymore)
> In this
> system, it's better to be some guy who kinda worships
> Orlanth and concentrates on his talents.
I think this is really what the majority of folk do anyway. I only know of one campaign where someone has reached Wind Lord status through play in HQ, and that character was started on a draft set of Hero Wars rules, and in many ways doesn't really resemble what you might expect an actual HQ wind lord to look like.
But if we take the spirit of your question; To becomne the Windlord you need to become a disciple of your God. To do this from a gamist point of view you will quickly pertition the Narrator to become a Devotee, as the character advancement will halve.
It is generally accepted that feats granted by deities are of a higher power order than Heortling Talents. Also, by becoming a Devotee you can improvise new feats from your affinities. In the hand of a creative player and a good narrator, can become a powerful story tool.
Also remember that Kallyr is an Initiate. So its not like your wrong is it?? I have a guy who is playing a solo game, and he is playtesting a concentrated common magic Orlanth Initiate. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
> I am finding
> that for the most part I'd rather just not use the
> system at all... I end up rolling dice just to look
> busy and just narrate what I think would happen.
Have you had the opportunity to play a game of HQ as a player? I started with the sample adventures, which I thought introduced the rules in a structured way. By the time I went to Continuum in Leicester I was able to hone the way I ran a game by playing in a number of tabletop HQ games.
> Having a fight where you can't tell if someone is
> wounded is strange.
The level of damage is determined by the level of defeat surely? Thus, take care not to describe people as having taken wounds and damage until the final action that results in a defeat with someone. If there is no healing available then natural healing takes place. What wounds have they taken? Well that will depend on what folks were attempting to do through the narration of the melee. For example, you say the enemy warrior is slashing viciously at the players kneck trying to remove his head! You reduce him to a major defeat. Surely the wound is a broken colar bone, and a festering wound that needs the dressings constantly changed throughout the period of convalescence. You can patch him up soi he can perhaps continue with the scenario (he is a hero after all), but as soon as he goes off duty then he needs proper healing, rest and recuperation. Page 81-82 HQ rulebook.
> And what about permanent damage?
Permanent damage? A complet defeat that does not result in death? That would be a contest involving non physical abilities. So, if you were trying to convince your clan mates to go on a raid against the neighbouring clan, then they will never want to go on a raid with you against them under any circumstances. As the narrator you decide why. Its not like you have to tell the players everything. Maybe a fun idea will occur to you how you can use that result as a story seed for a later adventure perhaps?
> How do you determine if someone has lost something
> permanently?
At the narrators option. HQ p65 for sample consequences.
> Do you give them back a hero point if
> they lose their relationship with their father?
No. Never. Such is the price of failure!! :^D
> How
> do you determine if they have, indeed, lost that
> relationship.
Narrator will decide based upon what is happening in the story. If you give an example I'll certainly give you my 2 bobs worth!
> It seems like the system is too simple or too
> complicated.
I would say simple that (can) feel very very complicated at the start!
> If your players can handle a completely
> arbitrary GM style or need just a little illusion to
> feel like they have some control, this is a good, but
> not the best, way to do it.
I emphasise the gamist element in my campaign. That is why it is possible to die in my game. It maintians the tension. I know others have different views on this.
> If your players want to
> be able to count on their abilities being able to do
> things in a semi-quantifiable way, I just don't see HQ
> having any chance of making that happen.
I think I would need an example here.
> Don't get me wrong. I like HQ. It seems to have a
> system in there somewhere. It's just that every time
> I run a game, it feels like I'm improvising the entire
> thing and making up rules as I go along. If I have to
> make up all the rules, I might as well just make them
> all.
I think I understand how you feel. I really do think that it is a question of experience. The other thing is the type of adventures or scenario's you are running. HQ is not going to suit say, a dungeon crawl. If you constantly have combat situations then I think that the bidding system is going to get wearisome, and the simple combats unsatisfying.
I hope this helps!
Regards
Rob
Powered by hypermail