There's two reasons behind this. Firstly even a series of movies has very little plot compared to an RPG. Secondly movies rely on the idea that the hero will rise from pod car repairman, or whatever, by a series of improbable chances. He/she will then fluke a win at the critical point. Even if you stack the odds in their favour it's going to take a lot of PCs and a lot of game time to recreate that.
>Bryan -
>
>> What is probably missing is how to play *H*eroes with less
>> than a few years of campaigning to get to that power level.
>
>The idea that you have to start out weak and only after many years
>become a character worthy of being considered a protagonist is
>outmoded. Why not just start out as powerful characters with simple
>abilities, instead of comparatively weak ones subject to all of these
>complicated limitations?
Why not go the whole hog and start out as Argrath or the Red Emperor? Play through the Hero Wars with entire armies in support.
>I recognize that some people want to play limited characters. I'd
>argue that this should be an advanced option, not the default. Start
>out with the simplest possible rules, allowing the most generally
>exciting characters--the ones Greg finds interesting enough to write
>about--and later introduce rules for the more complex, limited
>characters for those who prefer them.
I'm not sure rules based on heros are going to be significantly simpler unless a lot of background is discarded. Jane and I are writing quite a bit about Kallyr and there's nothing simple about any of it. We find we're writing stuff and then considering how it could be made to work using the HQ rules. So far we've always been able to manage without stretching the rules too far.
On the other hand I'm all for examples at different levels so the potential is clear and usable.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail