>From: "Rob" <robert_m_davis_at_...>
>And in our group we have both creatures:
>1. Rules dude who scours his sheet for any relevant, semi relevant and
>some down right irrelevant augments to any given situation.
This guy is often misdiagnosed. Put another way, all my players scour their sheets to some extent looking for augments, and they're none of them rules lawyers or "gamists" etc. Some of us wierdoes think that looking for augments is fun.
>2. The narrative gal who will pick an ability and maybe throw in one
>relevant augment, because lunars killed her mum or something!
I always wonder what "narrative" means in this context. In any case, this could actually be several player types as well.
>The solution I have found is to limit it to kit plus 2 or 3 augments. I
>routinely suggest a further augment to narrative gal.
I do cut people off, but only when they seem to be floundering. If they're rattling off long lists, and they all pertain? So much the better.
>The reason for this is that it can be difficult to design challenges when
>you are not sure who will be dealing with it. Therfore it can be too hard
>or too easy.
I don't buy this, personally. First, just don't "design challenges." Make them up as you need them. Second, they can't be "too hard or too easy." HQ makes any level of opposition fun, IMO.
>I enjoy the gamist element of RPG's as well as prefering the narrative flow
>of a Heroquest game.
As you can guess, I'm not on board with this mode of play. Note how you have to alter HQ to make it work with this mode.
>...a spiritist practitioner PC who opts to take the five starting spirits
>they get at the maximum rating given in the write-up for their practise..
Players don't make up spirit ratings. The narrator does. That doesn't help with where to set them. But it does mean that you can set them at whatever level you find balancing.
Mike
Powered by hypermail