I have a couple of comments in reply,
First, note that I'm probably not even remotely representative of what "HQ Referees" want to see. Heck, I might even be unique in this.
Second, on the subject of power-level... for a player like me at least, it is not even remotely an impediment to just picking up and playing that the power levels are "set" as you note. First, changing the power level of characters in HQ is almost trivially simple, even to do on the fly. So if the material you're seeing doesn't match a need you have to have a certain power level, you can adjust it with next to no effort.
Second, for those who are like me, power level is actually pretty irellevant in terms of what I need. That is, HQ is one game in which you really don't have to worry much at all about the power levels of the opposition (assuming my style of play, again). Because play for us is not at all about providing "appropriately difficult challenges" or such - or any sort of player tactical challenge. It's about exploration of themes and exploring the characters. Including what it's like for them to get crushed by way more powerful foes (or overcome simple things, or potentially fail them).
So I don't have to have opposing levels of ability that match my players' heroes' levels of power at all.
(And, again, again, again, that's just how I play it... if I claim that it's the only way to play it, or the best or something, a lot of people here would crucify me).
Frankly, one of the reasons I play HQ is because I can do it with no prep at all. I'll say that again, I do zero prep for play most nights. Zero. I run games of HQ off the cuff at conventions with great regularity (at least a dozen times this past year). So the idea that it's not a "pick-up-and-run" game seems completely incorrect to me. Mike
These comments sparked some thoughts for me.'Campaign packs' can have a range of NPC power levels, and thus levels of operation, within them. So a Heortling pack can talk about stealing sheep, but also talk about engaging in political power plays with Kallyr. So, a ref. can introduce his PCs to this environment, and if they are tough as nails they may be dining with King Broyan, but if they a plebs they may just be in the Fyrd being inspired from a distance.Scenarios - if you want them to be pick-up-and-play scenarios - have to be pitched as specific power/influence levels.HQ doesn't have the 'advantage' of obvious and clear scale-ability that e.g. AD&D and Champions (Hero System) has, when developing a scenario. These systems clearly state 'this scenario is for level X or points-base Y characters'.As a writer, you know that a Champions scenario for 450 point-based characters, with Combat values between 10 and 14, means your PCs will be pitched against adversaries at a particular level. If you are a ref. and that's where your PCs are at, you can buy and use the book with only minor adjustment. In HQ, because of different house rules on augmenting, a PC with 2 masteries in his main fighting ability in one campaign under one set of augmenting rules, may be noticably less potent than in the next campaign with another set of rules. HQ has the advantage of encouraging a lot of house-ruling around this stuff. That is also a disadvantage.I perceive, rightly or wrongly, HQ as a cult-game, not a mainstream pick-up-and-play game. I, in all game systems, have used scenarios to cover my lazy periods, and want to 'pick up and play' quite often. I use campaign packs when I want to tailor things to the PCs, but only when I have the time avaiable to think about 'fit' and tailoring things.I have the sense that there haven't been that many scenarios created, because there isn't really the demand for them. HQ referees want endless background, not pick-and-play.I used to love the structure that TSR brought to the Forgotten Realms AD&D environment, because the scenarios were available at a host of different power levels, but the campaign packs covered the whole spectrum, and the two dovetailed nicely. I don't *really* see this approach in HQ, but that's partly because the publishing process appears to be hideously slow.Hope this helps!Nam> That is, in fact, precisely my objection to the scene-based form of scenario. How can it be about the PCs if it assumes what they're doing and why? One size fits all PCs?> I think that any pre-written scenario is doomed somewhat to this problem, no matter the style. If you really, really want to make play about the PCs, then the scenario should be written up from the PCs. In fact, skip scenarii altogether, and just make and modify the situation based on what happens in play, is my usual technique.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail