>Oh, I disagree. As the main focus of a story, it would indeed, be fairly
>tedious. But as an element of it, I'd go as far as to say its not merely
>interesting, but really quite desirable. How else do you get to
>illustrate that the player heroes *are* above average?
Fair enough. (Though their ability to use hero points may be sufficient to portray this.)
>Now, I quite like stories where the characters are (at least to begin
>with) not much above average, so it doesn't matter so much to me.
Either way, what the supplements portray are average *opponents* to the players, not average citizens. You as Narrator can easily adjust: "My player-heros are all above average, so I'll turn the Barbarian Adventurers NPCs into average schmoes by reducing their abilities by 3." Or not, if you think that even an average person has an area where they excel, and that's the area that the players have to deal with.
Or "These are the people my average player-heros deal with, so I'll portray an above-average opponent by adding 3 to their abilities." The book remains optimally useful in the majority of cases.
HeroQuest works better as a toolkit if you don't try to go around assigning hard statistics to everything. I know the rules themselves tend to do this, but as the Seattle campaigns progressed, the Narrators found themselves having to make more and more adjustments.
--
David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail