>So far I've run games on the assumption that PCs "should" be at
>roughly the same level of in-game power. Those games have worked,
>but am I limiting myself and my players too much? If I'm writing a
>story, sharp contrasts in power are fun - would the same apply in a
>game? Has anyone tried it?
I guess that's been our assumption, but we also don't worry that they have power in different domains. Our best warrior is seldom the best person to conduct a heroquest, or to negotiate with a tribal king.
Not all of those things happen in any given session, so there's a certain amount of turn-taking. (Isn't "ensemble cast TV show" the model? I don't watch enough TV to know the jargon.)
And HeroQuest makes it easier for the non-dominant characters to contribute: you can always augment your friend, loan AP, possibly heal them, or just kibbitz usefully. I think the upcoming edition will make this even easier (I'm thinking particularly of the Assist rules, which let you step in and help someone who's in a one-on-one extended contest).
So no, I wouldn't worry about party balance. Worry about fun balance. If some of your players aren't having fun, fix that (presumably by giving them more to do, though what's the right thing for different players is beyond the scope of this e-mail -- I second Ray's reference to "Robin's Laws").
> > c) Because most games contain at least some of the players
>> Robin Laws calls "butt-kickers" or "tacticians"
>
>Can we assume for the purposes of discussion that they've moved out? Please?
I wouldn't. Typical groups really do contain a variety of player types.
(As a game designer, I really appreciate that we have a minimaxer in our group. Watching what he does helps tell me if I've succeeded at my design goals.)
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail