On Wed, 2005-27-07 at 18:07 +0100, Silburn, Luke wrote:
> Again it comes down to that GM-empowering 'take glorantha and run' approach of the rules -
> the mechanics don't *enforce* the cosmology so on the face of things 'focus on CM and get
> all these nifty different powers with no real drawback' is a good life-strategy for a Hero
> and for a group whose GM made no qualitative distinction between an inner world feat and a
> godworld FEAT that would, indeed, be a valid conclusion.
I do find it odd that the book doesn't enforce the difference a bit more, though. HeroQuest wasn't written as a generic system, and so something that is so core to the setting seems like it should have been emphasized more.
> Again, this is something a 'worked example' setting could address.
> Having said all that there are some depth/breadth tradeoffs present in the mechanics and mechanical
> considerations do change the in-game flavour of the three magic systems somewhat.
A bit. You do have the idea of "go narrower, get more power", but it really only shows up mechanically in concentration. (And a bit in the Initiate vs Devotee thing.)
> Others have commented on the "can't tell if you're wounded" thing and I agree with them.
> Its mostly down to the narrator keeping away from specifics until the contest has been completed.
> This is easy for simple contests of course, but harder for extended contests - part of the problem here
> is having our expectations trained by D&D-esque games where the simple-minded visualisation of attritional
> hitpoints is of characters gradually getting pounded into hamburger. Recasting things in a more swashbuckler-ey
> fashion so that you don't take an unambiguously manstopping wound until tipped into -ve APs
> (which is actually how D&D should be played IMO) resolves this issue I think.
I do think this has everything to do with being trained by DnD (and most other games). Few games have gotten around the idea of tracking wounds like that. I've certainly found getting people used to this idea of AP is requiring them to unlearn. (And me.) The system does require quite a bit more flexibility, but I find in the end it is easier to cover more options with it in a fight. What has worked for me is telling the players that they need to say what it is they intend to accomplish when they've reduced their opponent to 0AP. IT seems to help them reset their expectations.
> Regarding the permanent damage comment - I think the defeat and wound mechanics help here.
> I try and think in terms of abilities at stake and frame things along those lines to the players
> as they go into the contest, that way the level of defeat they suffer from a contest feeds pretty
> directly into stuff being damaged. Total defeat (or Major Defeat for a follower) can result in a
> permanent loss of whatever was staked on the contest.
I tend to work that way. There is the danger in a contest where the goals shift, though, you have to flow with it.
LC
Powered by hypermail