I have been thinking about this quite hard as, coincidentally, my latest attempt to come up with some satisfactory HQ-inspired house rules for RQ (using MRQ as a basis) stalled for some months recently, as I basically hit the opposite end of the same problem that Greg is facing - ie how to ensure that the nitty-gritty of RQ can be tweaked so that, mechanically, HQ-type Heroes can become possible and playable using RQ mechanics (which I personally prefer to the HQ ones, despite the undoubted excellence in game design of HQ).
Now, both systems are meant to illustrate Glorantha, when used as a setting, but RQ uses the bottom-up approach, and HQ top-down. Both approaches are partially broken, as RQ still fails to depict the Heroic levels of Glorantha, whilst HQ fails to depict the mundane (as a game system that is, specifically thematic content and GM/player input notwithstanding).
There appears to be some kind of gap though, where RQ as edited fails to illustrate epic scope, and HQ to illustrate the nitty-gritty that was one of the secrets of RQ's success.
But I would like to approach this from the HQ angle, as I understand that Greg's specific problem is how to portray Epic Level NPCs in HQ game supplements...
---
HeroQuest actually provides a fairly consistent scale of power, from
the mundane to the divine, via the heroic.
Looking at HQ:RiG, AR, and BA (ignoring the odd typo in this last
work), it is clear that levels 1-20 are meant to represent the
mundane levels of ordinary skill ; 1W-20W is the basic Mastery level,
maximum ordinary potential, basic natural superhumanity such as the
greater strength of bears as compared to humans, etc ; 1W2 and above
represent heroic to Epic to divine levels of power, etc
The interesting thing here is that the scale has been, in the
majority of cases, been directly derived from RuneQuest and from the
canon of Gloranthan RQ publications, using the principle that 1 point
in the HQ scale equals 5% in RQ
But clearly, this derivation fails at the 1W-20W level, and even more
so beyond, due to the deep differences between the two game systems.
HOWEVER the scale given in the HQ canon is perfectly coherent,
useful, and valid --- it is in fact necessary to provide just such a
scale as part of the core game design.
I proposed that the character advancement rules be tweaked, so as to
better mirror this complex state of affairs :
1) in order, primarily, to ensure that the Epic level NPCs have skill
levels hard to reach by PCs in campaigns run by GMs of varying styles
2) also to reinforce consistent portrayal of Glorantha across the
game systems
I believe that character advancement costs in the 1W-20W range should
be doubled ; trebled in the 1W2-20W2 range ; quadrupled in the 1W3-
20W3 range ; et cetera
This would solve both my own RQ problem and Greg's HQ question ; Greg
could simply keep the existing scale and work with it ; I myself
could simply use the following cross RQ/HQ scale for my own selfish
purposes :
01-100 % / 01-20 / 1HQ point = 5%
101-300 % / 1W-20W / 1HQ point = 10%
301-600 % / 1W2-20W2 / 1HQ point = 15%
601-1000 % / 1W3-20W3 / 1HQ point = 20%
1001-1500 % / 1W4-20W4 / 1HQ point = 25%
et cetera
I know that this is all a bit SuperRuneQuestey, but from experience I
know that SRQ is the best system for my personal GM style... that is,
I prefer to deal with percentile chances in three figures than with
the Masteries of HQ.
Whilst I believe that this approach more closely mirrors intended
power levels in the published canon, I think that most importantly
the diminishing return for investment is an important part in the
canonical illustration and representation of the Gloranthan Epic
style.
Julian Lord
PS & BTW I won't worry too much if these arguments convince no-one on
the list... they're just my personal take on the question :-)
Powered by hypermail