> However, if we haven't written the 10 pages about Harrek, how reliable
> are the stats? IMO, not very reliable at all.
Not reliable at all. However, even if Greg or someone wrote those 10 pages, they would not be printed in a HQ book.
I think that the stats for the rebel leaders were too brief. The leadership sheet is nice, but it packs a lot of empty space. Thus, I really have to come up with the NPCs and their interrelations almost from the scratch.
> Frankly, I think the old RQ Cradle scenario had this right. You
> didn't need stats for Garrath Sharpsword or Jarang Bladesong or
> Pinchining - they weren't necessary. Stats should be provided only
> when necessary - otherwise they are premature and confine creativity.
The Cradle approach worked in RQ, but IMO it doesn't suit HQ. In Cradle, the PCs are glorified grunts. They don't have an opportunity to really interract with the main NPCs.
Not giving the stats for main NPCs is a game design choice. What kind of gaming does it encourage or support? In Vampire, all critical NPCs were statted way above the PCs reach, so that the plot would not be endangered. In HQ NPCs in the W3 range aren't that invincible.
With the Cradle approach you don't stat or tell anything about the main NPCs. . . so that the plot is protected?
I don't know if I'm the only one around with this problem, but I find myself agonizing over making up new stuff and writing my own dynamics between the rebel leaders etc., because I know that at the same time I'm making a lot of the future material unusable.
Anyway, I have to keep up with my campaign.
Another designers intent that I can read behind the "SidekickQuest" approach is that if you leave the major NPCs in the dark, it is concievably easier to convert the adventures to your own campaigns specifications.
Olli Kantola
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Powered by hypermail