Very impressive post mr. Mike Holmes! Enlightening for the understanding of HQ rules and the understanding of the lord of the rings, too - really!
I wonder how you would handle all the magic in LOTR. You speak of boosts
like the rings giving masteries.
As i see it, this is not like a normal augment in HQ, more like a released spirit, that adds its rating to your rating, no?!
Would you change rules for a ME campaign using HQ?!
all the best
Christian
Hi,
I think Mike's first post contains a vital bit of logic for people coming over from (what are we going to call them: "classic"; "typical") roleplaying games.
He notes that certain individuals and races, though rated at one level, have a whole host of mosifiers from augments: anger, certain people or races support or piss them off and so on.
Most games set ratings at a fixed point on a scale: Conan is X strong, for exampe. But in HeroQuest, ratings are contextual. Who is Conan fighting? What at the circumstances? What's at stake? Who's at his side?
And these contexts are all, when used correctly, ta-da!, story based. So, a player puts down attributes, relatioships, personality and more on his character sheet and its in his best interest to have those things involved in the session. And the Narrator knows the player wants them in the game because they're on the character sheet.
This then runs counter to the standard habit of "setting up a game world," which is designed to run along fine with out without the players. You could have the GM's story run and slot in almost anybody. But in HeroQuest, what's on that character sheet is what the session should be about. And when it is, then the charcters stats are in constant flux as we see the PC affected by all the narrative elements that define him.
Christopher "HeroQuest Just Arrive in my Mailbox Three Days Ago and I'm On a Tear" Kubasik
This is the big HQ philosophy discussion once again....and kind of a dogma thing-HQ is narrative and all simulation is "evil".
QuoteChristopher Kubasik said:
"Most games set ratings at a fixed point on a scale: Conan is X strong, for exampe. But in HeroQuest, ratings are contextual. Who is Conan fighting? What at the circumstances? What's at stake? Who's at his side?"
I disagree, because if Conan is the hero of our story, he is the character. He develops, yes, but he has definite ratings. Sure, his ratings are augmented by his relations, but in a way that is the case in every rpg.
His opponents ratings are assigned as they fit the drama/challenge the narrator wants from the story.
QuoteChristopher Kubasik said:
"I think Mike's first post contains a vital bit of logic for people coming over from (what are we going to call them: "classic"; "typical") roleplaying games.
He notes that certain individuals and races, though rated at one level, have a whole host of mosifiers from augments: anger, certain people or races support or piss them off and so on."
If you look at "Anaxials Roster", its the same, you have definite ratings, but only as examples, and to describe a given creature.
QuoteChristopher Kubasik said:
"This then runs counter to the standard habit of "setting up a game world," which is designed to run along fine with out without the players."
To me this is really something more inbetween. The world is a story, too- a background story.
The adventure is a story that has the characters as an element, relating to the world.
So i think a game world is designed as a story. You can design creatures and give them a rating, but for every adventure you have to change them according to the drama you want.
Still, ratings and numbers tell a story too, like the ME example showed very impressively for me (but it´s different language so to say).
If there is one dogma in HQ then it is: everything is a story! (Even the numbers)
all the best
Christian
Hi Christian,
If you want to see the world as a story, a background story, that's great. People have been playing these game that way for a long time and I'm sure there's a lot of enjoyment in it.
However, it's certainly not how *I* want to play. (Does that mean I think its evil? For the record, no.)
I simply prefer games where what is on the character sheet is what matters and that's what the play session is going to be about.
I've reached a point where what matters is the play session -- not the imaginary world that might or might not get used. And the play session, for me, is defined by what all the players have agreed to concern themselves with that night -- the Kickers, Passions and so on. Again, if someone wants to do it a different way, great. But what I find fascinating is that HeroQuest is primed to do this so well.
Which brings us back to the main thrust of this thread:
The Narrator (or GM or whatever) of any game sets a value for a lion. That is objective. But if one player is enraged by lions, and another fearful of lions, they're going to battle it with different values than if they had been battling a rhino and had no attributes reflecting any concern for rhinos.
Now, this may or may not be of interest to you. But to me the fact that the PCs carry around their own narrative modifiers is really neat. Because each time these aguments get activated it shines a light on the PC that makes it clear what's happening is significant because its about the PCs.
If Indiana Jones is afraid of snakes (and, of course, he is) every time snakes show up, its a reminder we're watching an Indiana Jones movie. In HQ terms, his ratings alter (for better or worse) because of this -- because he's this character, and not another character, who could deal with these snakes without any modifiers.
I'm sorry if you took my post as some sort of dogma/evil thing. It wasn't meant to be -- and it isn't.
It was, however, my thoughts on a very cool, and very diffferent kind of, rules set that puts into motion the kind of game that would have kept me in the hobby seven years ago. But the truth is, there was no game like this at the time. It's that different, and I expect to play it differently than I've played other games.
Now, you may not be excited about the things I'm excited about. You may not see the things I'm excited about, but please. You may see them and wonder why I'm excited. But please, don't call me a dogmatist because I'm excited. I'm seeing things you can do with HeroQuest that I couldn't, simply couldn't, do with a lot of other games. And because these things are new, I want to share them with people.
But there are as many rule books of HeroQuest as there are people who want to play, and I'm sure we'll all manage to play our own way.
Best,
Christopher
Hey Christopher!
I totally agree with everything you said and i find it very exciting, too, that HQ gives you all these new aspects to roleplaying.
When i said evil i was refferring to some kind of inside joke thing, thats going on the HQ-rules yahoogroup.
Its always simulationist versus narrativist.
Simulation is "evil"and non HQlike, narration is "good"and HQlike.
So what i wanted to say with my post, is that its not always that black or white and what seems to be simulative can be quite narrative, i don´t know if that became clear.
all the best
Christian
The narrative method does not preclude using keywords and, for Middle-earth, keywords are not particularly difficult to render. One can convert the Decipher Lord of the Rings racial details over to HeroQuest with a minimum of muss and fuss, and the added color is worth it. Elves and Dunedain are definitely not cut from the same cloth as Hobbits and Middle Men, nor in my opinion should they be.
The subtle magic of the Elves and Dwarves can be handled like Common Magic, as that most mirrors magic in Middle-earth. Powerful magicians are probably best modeled using Wizardry schools, although much Glorantha-specific rules detail will need be excised. However, since Iluvatar is much like the Invisible God in concept, the Valar can be likened to Saints (that makes sense if you consider that people in Middle-earth invoke the Valar much as real-world people do saints).
Serious magical power in Middle-earth requires a connection to Valinor, however, and only those who have lived there or seen it personally (or are descended from someone who has) have the heritage necessary to wield it. Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel derive as much of their power from their connections to the Blessed Realm as they do from the Three. Those who possess items crafted by those touched by the Light of Valinor wield power, it is true, but they never hold it outright. The Nazgul are perfect examples of this.
"Touched by the Light of Valinor" seems to be an excellent blanket quasi-magical ability to give Noldor, ancient Sindar and individuals of especially pure Dunedain ancestry. It can be used to augment just about anything, as long as the character invokes a specific Vala suitable to the task.
Hi Christian,
I see now what caught me off guard: I've never been to the HQ Yahoo group, so I had no idea there was a mighty battle afoot.
Hi RaconteurX,
Just because I feel like little senetences of mine are being misunderstood left and right here, was your opening sentence about "narrative method does not preclude using keywords" directed at something I said? Because -- of course not. Key words help make a character this and not that and so are very usuful for helping everyone at the table know, "I want to be this kind of guy; I'm interested in these kinds of things."
Christopher
Ian Cooper:
Hopefully you won't be upset if I don't guess the masteries for the characters but AFAIK the proposed mastery scale is something like:
W - journeyman/professional
W2 - among the best in the clan/town/master crafstmen
W3 - among the best in the tribe/city/region
W4 - among the best in the country/reknowned
W5 - among the best in the world/household name
Actually I think that it goes more like:
W - Journeyman/professional, among the best in the village
W2 - master, one of the best in the clan / tribe level
W3 - hero, among the best in the country / region
W4 - superhero among the few in the world (Glorantha) who have achieved this level in any ability
When augments are calculated into the equation we get the numbers you suggested.
If we give Gandalf 10 masteries, then he could have put every single person in the whole of middle earth to sleep of something like that. With four masteris on a combat ability Aragorn could have hacked whole armies into pieces just by himself.
If we consider strength, then we could just crossreference the masses from the Anaxials roster to whatever is suitable. Large 18W7 is several kilometres long and very massive dragon. A part of that could come from the fact that a dragon can use its size well, while for example a solid spaceship can't.
I think that both Legolas and Aragorn have their best abilities in the W3 range, but those abilities are propably something like Destiny and Elven Immortality. Maybe they both had combat abilities that reached the third mastery with augments. . . IMO Aragorn has other cool abilities too. I can think of some abilities right now. Love Arwen 19W, Narsil 2W2, Last Scion 16, Leader of the Rangers of North 18W, Run of Long Distances 2W2, Scouting 16W, Wilderness Survival 11W2, Know Healing Herbs 5W, Ally/Patron: Elrond 16, Ally/Patron: Gandalf 12W, Reputation: Strider (queer folk) 17, Know Paths and Ways 1W, Geography of Arnor (and Surrouding Lands) 15W, History and Legends of the West 14W, Travelled Far and Wide 14W, Brave 12W2, Responsible 18W, Wise 17W, Sword Fighting 15W2, Inspiring Words 3W, Destined to be King 15W3, Isildur's Doom 18 etc.
Consider this, we are give the difficulties of healing in the rulebook. Do you think that Elrond could heal someone who had been hacked into pieces? I think not.
It's an unfortunate legacy of the confused early 'hero wars' edition of the rules that some people seem to think that confusion, lack of guidelines and unbalanced rules are associated with narrativist play, and so inherently good. It's kind of annoying, and probably does more to put people off trying HQ than anything else. A bogus argument is still a bogus argument, no matter how good the thing it argues in favour of.
On the other hand, there is some kind of basis in fact for it though, as the only GMs able to successfully run HW were those who were so good at it they could overcome the confusion without any guidelines, with players so focused on the narrative that they didn't make any attempt to game the rules, or notice a gap between what the GM said was hapenning and what the rules implied. So if a HW game lasted past a few sessions, it would probably be good and may well have been great.
Heroquest resolves most, though not all, of those issues, without making the game any less good for purely narrativist play. Unfortunately some people still talk about it on the net as if it were still a gnostic mystery that only the initiated can understand.
soru
All of the above posts were split from The Hero Scale ...? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1961) from quite a while ago.
Everyone, please follow the guidelines referenced in the Sticky post at the top of the forum. They are the same as posted at the top of the Site Discussion forum, and they include leaving older threads alone. If you want to follow up on an older thread, just start a new thread and provide a link.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Christopher KubasikWas your opening sentence about "narrative method does not preclude using keywords" directed at something I said?
No, I was addressing Ian Rourke's comment in the older thread about wanting to use the narrative method of character creation, but without keywords. Upon re-reading it, however, I think he was stating not that he preferred to dispense with keywords, but that he did not have any written up for the Middle-earth setting.
Hey,
Thanks for the clarification. And that's what I think he meant.
Christopher
The reason why i´m so persistend in the whole scale and what_mean_masteries_beyond_4 is, that i want to be able to imagine, what happens after the human scale. I want to know, because it will help me designing worlds and adventures.
I know, that you don´t need to know, because HQ is a narrative game and not a simulationist, but as i already said, to me the numbers can tell a story, too!
I wonder what kind of god has M12, is he the creator of the whole universe, like our christian god, or is he more a ruler god like zeus/jupiter?
I want to know, why a Saint has a power of 6M. And what is that power ?
As i understand it, power means highest ability, with augments already included, i guess.
So if Gandalf has a power of M7, that does not mean his ,,Fight With Sword" rating is that high, he may well have just something like 15M to 5M2. But his magical power might be that high.
It´s really ages ago, that i read the ,,Lord Of The Rings", but i saw the movie last week, and there was that scene, where he meets Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas for the first time as Gandalf the White and he defeats them alltogether in ONE single ,,round".
If you look at Legolas, what he is capable with his bow, the accuracy...he ´s a supersharpshooter without the need for a scope.
Part of his power is his long life (practice), another part his elven eyesight, so i guess his power in arrowshooting is about M4, because he´s definiteley superhuman in what he does.
Next question, do skills beyond the superhuman scale get magical?
Maybe not in that technological meaning (whenever a rating reaches X masteries you automatically gain an affinity"bla"), but if you think of magic as being able to extend your will, so what you wish comes true, then yes.
Imagine ,,FastTalk M6+", this is like Obi Wan controlling the stormtrooper in Mos Eisley. One word und you win the contest. Magic? A word of pure power, definitely!
The same with ,,Fighting M8", you are so good - one strike and your (ordinary) opponent is defeated. Thats what i call magic *lol*.
M8 in any ,,Perception" ability-nothing can escape you unnoticed! You are even able to notice the hardly noticable...!
M8 in ,,Tracking" – a footprint gives you in depth information about the person who made it. Again, like in the ,,Two Towers", that scene where Aragorn gets all the information about the disapperance of the hobbits, just by reading a few tracks (no, i´m not saying his power in ,,Tracking" is M8).
So in a way greater skill ratings give you greater insight into the universe. Thats what magic is all about!
I dont think if Elrond had M6 in healing means, that he is able to heal people who are hacked to bits. He is just very effective, he can heal the most dangerous and complicated disease. Being better does not necessarily mean to be able to do impossible things. There are limits what certain things can do, i think, a healing herb is a healing herb, you can make the best out of it, but not more, whatever your rating might be.
For that you need the magic, that we all know from Glorantha, the kind of magic that transcends the mundane.
It´s kind of tricky, to distinguish between superhuman abilities and magic as in spells and feats that supercede the mundane ,,laws".
I hope somebody can relate to my thoughts.
all the best
Christian
Quote
Part of his power is his long life (practice), another part his elven eyesight, so i guess his power in arrowshooting is about M4, because he´s definiteley superhuman in what he does.
Next question, do skills beyond the superhuman scale get magical?
YMEMV, but I don't see any reason to put Legolas beyond about 10W2 to w3. In general, for physical abilities somewhere around w2 is the maximum for any natural/realistic human physical ability, he's better than that but not totally out of sight of it.
As for magic, glorantha is different from middle earth which is different from the real world. The gloranthan hero scale is based on the fact that gloranthan heros with just a few followers count as frontline military units. In contrast, the judo champion of the USA does not play a significant role in the military planning of the US army. Only Gandalf from the fellowship would count at that level, IMHO.
Whether that difference between worlds is counted as due to magic or just fudged because you are not that worried by it is pretty much up to you.
Using that argument, a real world version of the hero scale would be something like:
xW: elite veteran soldier
xW2: special forces squad
xW3: tank
xW4: helicopter gunship squadron
xW5: regiment
xW6: carrier battlegroup
soru
Hello,
Christian, I could be very wrong, but I am perceiving you to draw a distinction between:
a) Narratistist: talking + no numbers
and
b) Simulationist: numbers + rolls
This is a false distinction, in terms of the role-playing model that uses the terms "Narrativist" and "Simulationist." Is my perception correct, that you and perhaps others on the HQ mailing list are thinking in this way?
Because my experience with the game and with many others is that Narrativist goals are best met with game mechanics that include quantitative and randomized features. "Just talking" turns out to be a relatively poor methodology.
You might be interested in the distinction between modes (Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism) and techniques (when to roll, how numbers are used, etc). They are very different things.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: soruQuote
... As for magic, glorantha is different from middle earth which is different from the real world. The gloranthan hero scale is based on the fact that gloranthan heros with just a few followers count as frontline military units. In contrast, the judo champion of the USA does not play a significant role in the military planning of the US army. Only Gandalf from the fellowship would count at that level, IMHO...
soru
It's not so clear to me that the grey company (Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Elrond's sons & the Rangers of the North) wasn't a frontline miltary unit. Look at what happened when they joined The Battle of the Pelennor Fields or when the army of Gondor was overrun at the Black Gate. Keep in mind there were only about thirty of them. Perhaps Aragorn was a hero in the gloranthan sense.
Hey Ron!
QuoteChristian, I could be very wrong, but I am perceiving you to draw a distinction between:
a) Narratistist: talking + no numbers
and
b) Simulationist: numbers + rolls
This is a false distinction, in terms of the role-playing model that uses the terms "Narrativist" and "Simulationist." Is my perception correct, that you and perhaps others on the HQ mailing list are thinking in this way?
No...i wouldn´t say so...!
It´s just everytime, somebody tries to do something that has the smell of simulation, somebody on the yahoo group tells you, you cant do it that way - because HQ is a narrative game...bla. Maybe i´m exagerating a bit, but to me there is a slight misunderstanding, what needs no numbers in HQ and must be narrated instead and what not.
all the best
Christian
Hello,
There it is again!
Quotewhat needs no numbers in HQ and must be narrated instead and what not.
It's the "instead" that concerns me. I am suggesting that the choice is not abotu numbers vs. narration, but about numbers-which-simulate vs. numbers-which-help-narrate.
I suspect this issue is going to have to wait for my Narrativism essay.
I've also begun to think that talking about a discussion on another mailing list isn't really helping this discussion very much.
Best,
Ron
It's always worth remembering that the indie-rpg definition of narrative play, while self consistent and useful, isn't really what the rest of the rpg world means when they use that word.
It's also worth remembering that the average film or book is probably rather more realistic/plausible than the average RPG session. Creating a not-implausible story is (or should be) right in the mainstream of HQ play.
soru
Hey guys,
The problem with using words as not defined here is that when I come here, I know what words mean. The fact that other people might mean something completely different on other boards is one of the reaons I read and post here and not somewhere else. Because we actually know what we're talking about (or at least working toward it in leaps and bounds), so I know what the conversation is actually about.
Second, Ron's right. Referencing discussions on other threads, especially if people are using the words with completely different definitions leaves me either a) confused, or b) obliged to go read all those threads so I know what you mean.
So if you have concerns about how people are talking on those threads, shouldn't those concerns be addressed on those threads?
Respectfully,
Christopher
Quote from: soruIt's also worth remembering that the average film or book is probably rather more realistic/plausible than the average RPG session.
I'd
really not go there for cinema. As a wild generalisation, I'd say that players (in my experience) will pick on logic/plausibilty holes in a game scenario far more relentlessly than they'd ever consider doing to a film - unless they hate it. It's one of the reasons that film license games are usually (but not always) dissatisfying. A film just needs to hold suspension of disbelief for a couple of hours. A game's needs are as open ended as the game itself and must be self-consistant - or at least consistantly non-consistant to survive. (meta-consistant?).
I always strive to make my scenarios *more* plausible than any film or novel. After all, I can only provide motivation as a Narrator. It's the players who decide what to do about that motivation. I set a scenario and can plot
likely outcomes, but when the players decide to do something else, I have to deal with it, or figure out how to railroad them without them noticing. These are things a filmmaker or author doesn't have to deal with - they can just modify the character without them complaining and we the consumers will never know, because we only get to see the finished product.
That is probably a more simulationist point of view than narrativistic.
If the player characters are more obviously archetypal, then they become easier to motivate in a narrow sense. "You must do this! Collect the plot coupons and do not return for the ending before you have them all! First you must get... etc." Done with style it is transparent. Otherwise, it's railroading. I wish I could figure out the magic formula for style...
I (IMHO etc) personally prefer managing emergent stories to drive an arc.
tweaking the environment to nudge the characters as they emerge duing play. I repeat my wish for the magic style formula...
I wait with bated breath for Ron's Narrativism essay. Too many people seem to mean that the GM fudging/ignoring dice rolls for the sake of the story is "Narrativism". I don't think so.
Cheers
Graeme
As a member of the HeroQuest-Rules and HeroQuest-RPG mailing lists, I have witnessed no criticism of the sort which Christian says he received on those lists. Christian seems to want some sort of universal scale to be implemented to ease decision-making as a narrator but the HeroQuest mechanics, being logarithmic in scale and a trifle arbitary in design, do not easily lend themselves to that level of detail. This irritates some people and is applauded by others. I appreciate Christian's dilemma, as HQ can seem daunting at first due to the lack of real-world numbers with which to compare its scale.
A hero whose Run Fast rating equals the Fly Swiftly of a hawk could be said to run at whatever real-world speed the hawk is capable of achieving, and knowing such detail can be handy if one wishes to exactly determine how long it takes the hero to move from one place to another on foot. Run Fast is fairly broad, however. Is it a sprinter's ability to cover short distances quickly, or a marathoner's ability to pace him- or herself to cover long distances in optimal time? Complementary abilities often augment one another. If our hero has both Run Fast and Run Long Distances, he or she could augment the higher by the lower to run a long distance quickly.
My approach is not to model things strictly but allow the mechanics to tell us what happened, as they are designed to do, and leave the how to the players and narrator to determine. Were our fleet-footed hero from above to achieve a complete victory, that should represent the best run of his or her life, far outstripping any hawk. Knowing his or her exact speed, while it may be important to the story, should not be more important than knowing that the hero has accomplished something even more extraordinary than usual. The degree of victory is the truest gauge of the hero's actual speed, not his or her ability rating. That represents a benchmark, an average above and below which the hero fluctuates.
The abstract nature of the HQ mechanics is its greatest strength, in my opinion. They allow people to play in as cinematic a mode as desired, because interpretation of the dice rolls is in their hands rather than that of the game designers. One can play HQ in as gritty a fashion as one used to play RuneQuest, sans the excruciating combat detail. All it requires are a harsher interpretation of dice results, higher minimum Advantage Point bids for unrealistic actions, stingier Hero Point awards, and higher resistance values for magic. The system handles these sorts with little trouble, and the additional rules required are almost nil.
I don ´t understand all the confusion.
This thread is named the HeroScale. Mike Holmes made suggestions how to imagine characters and their powerlevels for LOTR characters.
I found that quite impressive and learning to understand that scale better is what i´m interested in.
For me it´s no question that there is a scale, but maybe different than in simulationist games.
Beside that i don´t understand why i have to proof that there is a scale at all, because the masteries and what they mean are the scale and nobody ever said, it doesnt work...!
If you agree on that point-fine! No need to further discuss that.
My problem and what i want to research, with help of other people in this forum is how to imagine power of superhumans. People with more than 4 masteries.
Whats a saint like?
What is a M12 god like ?
If somebody tells me Galadriel has maybe a power of M8 then thats something i can relate to.
I don´t want to hear, you can´t do that, because im not interested in that topic. HQ rules say: the numbers of a creature are related to the story.
What is the LOTR ? A story!
What is the mike holmes post about powerlevels of LOTR characters ? A story i think! It tells a story about power and why certain people are that powerful.
If i want to write an adventure, one way to do it is to know what certain numbers mean.
I know i can also write an adventure by thinking of how much challenge i want an opponent to be, but i have no difficulties in doing that, because that technique is all clear to me..!
We know what ratings of up to four masteries mean and we have real world experiences with such ,,powerlevels", but its kind of unclear what they mean beyond that. This is where my interest lies.
all the best
Christian
You ask what a saint is like, what a great god is like. Be specific. You can only get the most general of answers until you refine your inquiry to ask specific questions. What are they like in what sense? In terms of system mechanics? Personality? Source of magical power? Favorite sports team? Whether they dress snappy? Like to snuggle?
As I believe was pointed out to you on the HeroQuest-Rules list, a great god is a being which embodies some fundament of the world at its most primal level. In Gloranthan terms, they are the so-called rune-holders: Orlanth is Air, Yelm is Sky, Humakt is Death, Uleria is Life, Wakboth is Evil, etc.. Lesser gods may share a rune with one of the holders, but their understanding of and connection to it is less perfect. Look at Thunder Rebels for a good sense of how a great god devolves into aspects and then subcults. Great Orlanth subsumes Orlanth Adventurous subsumes Destor, Finovan, Desemborth, etc.
A Malkioni saint is similar in power to a petty god of the Heortlings. Many were once Heroes like Harrek or Jar-eel who achieved great wisdom or power and eventually became the subject of veneration and/or sacrifice, in order that some of their power or wisdom would descend to the people from on high. A sizeable chunk of a saint's or petty god's power likely comes from the total support they enjoy from those communities which worship or venerate them. Most likely possessed three or four masteries in life, and a thousand devotees or orderlies could easily boost that to five or six.
What else would you like to know?
Here are some off-the-cuff ratings for what I consider the best abilities possessed by various
Lord of the Rings characters:
- Aragorn -- Isildur's Heir 10W4
- Boromir -- Swordsmanship 10W3
- Elrond -- Ward Imladris 10W4
- Frodo -- Master of Samwise 10W4
- Galadriel -- Ward Lothlorien 10W4
- Gandalf the Grey -- Inspire Others 10W3
- Gandalf the White -- Inspire Others 10W6
- Gimli -- Axemanship 10W3
- Legolas -- Archery 10W3
- Ringwraiths -- Cause Fear 10W3
- Smeagol/Gollum -- Covet the Precious 10W4
[/list:u]
Quote
I don´t understand all the confusion
The confusion comes from the fact there are 2 different scales used for numbers in published supplements.
On the Anaxial's roster numbers, starting PCs are already low-grade mythic heroes, they can outrun a horse, wrestle with a grizzly bear (without using any explicit magic), and so on.
In all other published sources, starting PCs, (with the same numbers) are amongst the best in their clan, but still nothing that would look out of place in a realistic historical film.
To that, you add:
the difference between numbers on a character sheet and resistances (i.e. with augments added in).
whether you count hero points as part of the character's perceived power. I am pretty sure Frodo and Sam spent a lot of hero points in LoTR, rather than actually being stronger than the corrupting influence of the ring. Gandalf had faith in providence, the rest of the wise knew what they expected to happen.
the fact that there are 4 different and theoretically independant scales (logarithmic, best in the [social group], A usually beats B and dominates C, mortal/magical hero/god/major god) that happen to more or less match in Glorantha, but needn't in some other world.
the confusion between 'mythic hero' and 'hero'. You don't need W4 in bravery to be brave.
attempts to turn any discussion about numbers into a discussion of gaming styles, often using the argument 'numbers aren't important, therefore your numbers are wrong'.
--
Establishing a scale for your own game is reasonably useful if you want to maintain plausibility and self-consistency ('what, these random gate guards are suddenly W3?' or 'why should I bother raising the fyrd, I'll just go kill the lunar army by myself'). Of course, not everyone cares about self-consistency, plenty of D&D campaigns get by with 3rd level threats and 10th level city guards by simply avoiding having the two meet ('yes, the army is off fighting in the North. Again').
But trying to establish a scale between different people's games is mainly a concern for those writing supplements. If there are going to be numbers in them, they might as well have some chance of being usable directly, especially by new narrators.
soru
A few very important thing to keep in mind about Anaxial's Roster are that a) it was an early supplement for Hero Wars (not HeroQuest... important distinction!), b) it was the first beyond the Narrator's Book to set down hard numbers for anything at all, and c) early authors and editors for HW had little or nothing in the way of a solid framework for ability ratings.
AR was an attempt to provide some guidelines, but all it managed was to muddle things up further. HQ ironed out the major kinks in the mechanics, but AR remains a sticking point and its conversion will never be perfectly seamless. Get used to the disappointment. There is a single scale which should concern everyone: that presented in HQ. Everything which came before is outmoded and needs to be corrected, if it is to work properly.
Think of it as the World Machine in action.
I think RaconteurX has given the best advice on this so far. The scaling that he gives for LotR's characters fits my own estimation of their abilities. Except, I would've given Frodo "Master of Samwise 10w2" and no higher. It really is up to interpretation. In my Freedom City campaign that I am working on, masteries were a major sticking point but, after comparing how they worked in Mutants & Masterminds to how I wanted them to work in HeroQuest, it became quite simple.
Mundane Level: 0-1 Masteries
Heroic Level/X-Men level: 1-3 Masteries
Super-Heroic/JLA level: 4-5 (even 6) Masteries
Cosmic Level/Silver Surfer - Captain Marvel: 7-9
Godlike/Galactus: 10+
Of course, this scale is not perfect and many may disagree with it. But it works for me. The reason I listed the requisite super-hero power levels is primarily as yet another frame of reference. While not everyone knows who Humakt is, most everyone in our hobby has some familiarity with the JLA or the X-Men. Hope this helps.
I must admit i wasnt aware of a lot of factors that arouse the confusion in this thread.
Whatever i say here is the sum of what i learned about the HQ game. Sadly most of the infrmation i have did not come from HW, but from the HW yahoo group.
In fact you could hardly play the HW game without having this group as a source of reference. I have a big collection of posts, 2 inches big, that is my reference for a lot of questions.
With HQ, things changed a lot, but there are still a lot of topics that are quite unclear for the HQ beginner, i think, but that is not my specific problem, thats up to Issaries, its their game and they want to make money with it. Its not in my interest to critisize Issaries here.
So as i m a sum of what i have experienced in the past, i make mistakes in that i take it all for granted. Thats why i take my inside jokes of the yahoo group with me and have them in my post here on The Forge, without getting that other people might be confused by that.
I´m not here to critisize members of the yahoogroup or of Issaries, im here to get inspired by posting topics and reading what other people think about it.
For me HQ is basically the best gamesystem for playing exciting adventures the way i always wanted to. I must also say, that im not very much interested in Glorantha. For me HQ is the new ,,Basic RPG".
As scripty said:
QuoteWhile not everyone knows who Humakt is.....
i still want a:
Quoteframe of reference
For that i need examples. The ME post was a revealing one for me.
When i saw the table of magical might in HQ, i thought: great and then: erm great god...minor god....saint...whats that anyway, whats the difference, what does a saint like power being do? Its all so abstract.
Galadriel? I read the book!
Conan? I know the movie!
Superheroes? I can relate to that!
all the best
Christian
As i m ever curious i posted the questions: what are great gods and saints like ? on the yahooHQ group and got two answers, that i want to share here.
One answer was by Peter Metcalfe and the other one by Roderick Robertson.
My summary:
Saint: a saint is something that can be imagined as a convential saint or an angel in the christian sense or another inhabitant of a celestial realm. (Maybe that comic hero"Spawn" is in that powercategory, too as he is a fallen angel)
He is beyond that 10W4 level of superhumans, through the means of magic and/or complete support of worshippers, heroquests, and living the life of the ,,righteous".
So in a way he is a ,,pumped up" superhero.
Speaking of our real world to become a saint, it must be prooven that he performed a miracle. So as Peter Metcalfe said: a saint acts with the power of god.
Great gods: they didnt ,,make" Glorantha, but are manifestations of major parts/aspects of it (elements, sun, earth, etc.). They are not the creator of the universe, like our christian god. Think of Zeus or Odin for their earthly counterpart.
al the best
Christian
There's a passage from the Iliad that shows the greek gods used the HQ rules:
Quote
Now Dawn the saffron-robed was spreading over all the earth, and Zeus whose joy is in the thunder let call an assembly of the gods upon the topmost peak of many-ridged Olympus, and himself made harangue to them and all the gods gave ear: "Hearken to me, all gods and all ye goddesses, that I may tell you what my heart within my breast commandeth me. One thing let none essay, be it goddess or be it god, to wit, to thwart my saying; approve ye it all together, that with all speed I may accomplish these things. Whomsoever I shall perceive minded to go, apart from the gods, to succour Trojans or Danaans, chastened in no seemly wise shall he return to Olympus, or I will take and cast him into misty Tartaros, right far away, where is the deepest gulf beneath the earth; there are the gate of iron and threshold of bronze, as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth: then shall he know how far I am mightiest of all gods. Go to now, ye gods, make trial that ye all may know. Fasten ye a rope of gold from heaven, and all ye gods lay hold thereof and all goddesses; yet could ye not drag from heaven to earth Zeus, counsellor supreme, not though ye toiled sore. But once I likewise were minded to draw with all my heart, then should I draw you up with very earth and sea withal. Thereafter would I bind the rope about a pinnacle of Olympus, and so should all those things be hung in air. By so much am I beyond gods and beyond men."
That's the difference between a greater god and your everyday, namby-pamby weakling gods like Poseidon.
soru
Quote from: Der_Renegat
...i still want a: Quoteframe of reference
Christian
I'm confused. Didn't I just give you one?
Quote
Mundane Level: 0-1 Masteries (Jimmy Olson, Lois Lane)
Heroic Level/X-Men level: 1-3 Masteries (Beast, Wolverine's Fighting Ability, Nightcrawler, Batman)
Super-Heroic/JLA level: 4-5 (even 6) Masteries (Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Captain America)
Cosmic Level/Silver Surfer - Captain Marvel: 7-9 (Superman, the Hulk, Thor)
Godlike/Galactus: 10+ (Thanos with the Glove, Mephisto)
Here I've added a few examples. These are fairly close approximations and, while not detailed to the finest degree, I think it would be difficult to take a bevvy of references and say "Here, this is (blah)" For instance, Wolverine's Healing ability may be at 4 or 5 masteries, but his fighting skills only at 3. The Flash's speed may be at 6 or 7 masteries, but his science skill at 2 or 3. It's really difficult to set an authoritative scale here without branching it out. Perhaps something like the supers conversion found on this site is more what you're looking for:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/
Go to "Resources" and then to the Super-Hero conversion. My only issue with his scaling is with the speed chart. It doesn't seem to progress on the same scale as the other charts, IMO.
If you are familiar with Mutants & Masterminds, my rough conversion from Power Levels to Masteries follows:
(PL/4) = W* (Fine for X-Men level heroes but add one W for JLA level heroes)
Target number = (REM(PL/4) +1) x 5
The result is that a Mutants & Masterminds character with an Energy Blast of PL10 would have an Energy Blast of 15w2 in an X-Men level game and 15w3 in a JLA level game.
Further, a conversion from D&D3e skill bonuses that I use for "normal" settings is "Ability Rating = Skill Bonus + 15". For converting supers, I've found myself using "Ability Rating = Skill Bonus + 17" more often, however.
I hope this is more in line with what you're requesting. Frankly, I'm rather confused as to what you're wanting here. Beyond Bruce's charts, my PL conversions and a D&D3e rough conversion, I don't know how much more I could do to give you an idea of what level of mastery corresponds to what you're asking about.
Quote from: soru
The confusion comes from the fact there are 2 different scales used for numbers in published supplements.
On the Anaxial's roster numbers, starting PCs are already low-grade mythic heroes, they can outrun a horse, wrestle with a grizzly bear (without using any explicit magic), and so on.
In all other published sources, starting PCs, (with the same numbers) are amongst the best in their clan, but still nothing that would look out of place in a realistic historical film.
If the player selects a keyword which gives them an appropriate skill and then put ten points into that skill a beginning hero can outrun the average horse or wrestle the average bear. However races between men and horses was fairly common in England in the 19th Century and there are recorded cases of men successfully wrestling bears. So that seems to me to be the same scale.
yeah, you are right about the bear wrestling, my bad.
From the Louisiana state law:
Quote
Whoever commits the crime of bear wrestling shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
The fact that a punishment is needed implies that the match itself isn't always punishment enough.
soru
QuoteIf the player selects a keyword which gives them an appropriate skill and then put ten points into that skill a beginning hero can outrun the average horse or wrestle the average bear.
This is playing a game with hypothetical exploitation of the rules.
But the rules for improving abilities have no direct relation to the story a narrator wants to play with his players.
If you want, for your adventure, a hero to outrun a horse, fine, but if the narrator wants a universe where people arent able to outrun horses, then he will assign the horse a rating thats unbeatable by the hero, whatever his rating is. Even if this would mean, talking about "my" scale, that this horse had the power of a saint...!
Maybe you can explain it as a view: an inside and an outside view. Any adventure and its ratings are always from the inside of the story. So the numbers relate to the playercharacters, depending on how much dramatic impact you want any opponent to have.
The outside view, thats what my interest in this thread was, is a look on a complete story/a universe, where everything has a relation in power to each other. But its a "closed" universe. One that needs change to the powerrating of your playercharacters, to be of any game-use.
I would define
narrativism for HQ as that all ratings are related to the story.
For me, soru explained perfectly in his post, where all the confusion comes from.
all the best
Christian
Quote from: soru
That's the difference between a greater god and your everyday, namby-pamby weakling gods like Poseidon.
In HeroQuest, I'd say that the game provides ratings for Gloranthan entities. The Invisible God for example is considered by the Malkioni to be beyond, or to exist in a higher state than creation (including the otherworlds), and is therefore beyond any rating. Great Gods may also be considered to embody transcendent concepts that are beyond any numerical rating. The game already includes provision for transcendent powers that break the normal rules in the form of Secrets, which are low level manifestations of this. Saints may also fall into the same category of powers that break the game rules and therefore it's ratings system to some extent or other.
That may not be very helpful, bu I think the fact is that nobody has any experience running games at such very high levels, and so any approach to actualy using very high ratings, or working out how transcendent powers should affect the way the game plays is just speculative at the moment.
Simon Hibbs
Quote from: newsalorIan Cooper:
W - Journeyman/professional, among the best in the village
W2 - master, one of the best in the clan / tribe level
W3 - hero, among the best in the country / region
W4 - superhero among the few in the world (Glorantha) who have achieved this level in any ability
When augments are calculated into the equation we get the numbers you suggested.
.
My guesstimate for Harrek:
(Slashing Death Fighting 10W4)
Augments
- Skin of the White Bear +7
- Claws of the White Bear +7
- Arcas Power +5
- Ferocious +5
=14W5
Quote from: RaconteurXHere are some off-the-cuff ratings for what I consider the best abilities possessed by various Lord of the Rings characters:
- Aragorn -- Isildur's Heir 10W4
- Boromir -- Swordsmanship 10W3
- Elrond -- Ward Imladris 10W4
- Frodo -- Master of Samwise 10W4
- Galadriel -- Ward Lothlorien 10W4
- Gandalf the Grey -- Inspire Others 10W3
- Gandalf the White -- Inspire Others 10W6
- Gimli -- Axemanship 10W3
- Legolas -- Archery 10W3
- Ringwraiths -- Cause Fear 10W3
- Smeagol/Gollum -- Covet the Precious 10W4
[/list:u]
I'd support these numbers, or something near these. Gandalf I'd handle a bit differenly; see below. Sam I'd handle as a follower, but I'm not sure the level. His slaying of Shelob is definitely highly augmented in a number of ways, and has to be the result of the expenditure of HP.
Remember that all those previous numbers from way back came with a ton of caveats, and were mostly for relative ratings. One of which is that I didn't realize the somewhat exponential nature of the curve (actually, it's geometric, not exponential, but that's a quibble).
For the more powerful folks I'd give the following stats, now.
- Gandalf the Grey -- Spirit of the West 5W5
- Gandalf the White -- Spirit of the West 5W6
- Sauruman -- Lord of Isengard 15W5 (It's important to note that it's the character's investment in the fabric of Middle Earth which is their undoing.
- The Witch King (head Ringwraith) -- Bring Doom 10W4
- Galadriel's Ward should be augmented with a +11 (5W5) for the Girtle of Melian. Or something like that; could be that she uses that as her base score. Should be enough to challenge Sauron, but not stop him.
- Sauron -- Lord of Mordor 5W7
- The One Ring -- Empower 10W8
- Tom Bombadil -- Lord of the Old Wood 5W6
- Glorfindel -- Elf Lord 15W4
- Gothmog (Half-Troll named for the most powerful of Balrogs from the First Age) -- is he a follower of Sauron as general of his army? In any case, he's got about 15W4 in Destroy.
- The Mouth of Sauron -- must be a follower. But a tough one. Impress 15w3?
- The Balrog of Moria -- Flame of the Deep 10W5
- Shelob (spawn of Ungoliant) -- Lethally Poisonous 15W4 (The benefit of being the offspring of a demigod powerful enough to have stolen the light of the trees).
- Smaug -- Rate him like a Gloranthan shadow dragon. He's largish for the third age, but he's small as far as dragons go overall. The dragons of the previous ages were the size of real Glorathan Dragons (one once fell and sank an entire land).
[/list:u]
The "problem" is that the whole story of the War of the Rings is akin to one big Hero Quest. So, though it may look like I'm slanting a favored setting, I don't think that I am. These really are the Harreks and the demigods of the setting. Sauron, Bombadil, Gandalf, Sauruman, and the other Istari are, in fact, demigods. The Istari have essentially been sent to recall a demigod (Sauron) who has decided to live in, and dominate, the mortal world. All without the aid of the gods who are only invoked in name for morale bonuses. So it really is the story of the most powerful beings of the time.
Mike
Quote from: Der_Renegat
This is playing a game with hypothetical exploitation of the rules.
But the rules for improving abilities have no direct relation to the story a narrator wants to play with his players.
I would define narrativism for HQ as that all ratings are related to the story.
I don't agree that this is exploiting the rules, merely using them to create interesting characters. It is a choice for beginning characters to put all their HP in a couple of abilities or spread them more evenly between several.
Sure you can decide that in your Glorantha heros can't outrun horses but that's changing the published Glorantha to suit your game not correcting an inconsistency especially as an athletic human can outrun an average horse in the real world. That doesn't of course prevent a narrator having an exceptional horse to provide such a player with a challenge - indeed it could enhance the story.
While I'm only new to the concept of narrativism I like it but feel that just changing the numbers to make the game go the way the narrator thinks it should is too much like railroading. If a player chooses to create a character who's heroic abilities allow him to outrun a horse then that's what happens - if it's important then it's a contest with appropriate modifiers. That with another group of players the result is different doesn't bother me at all.
Hi Christian,
About this "not letting the PC run faster than a horse thing" --
Let it go. Just. Let It Go.
You can't guarantee a PC won't run faster than a horse in HeroQuest. (I think.)
The PC will start with base speed.
The player will have the choice to bump successes with APs.
And, most importantly, he'll be able to augment with skills, passions and relationships that you'll never be able to anticipate. Never. It is possible that in a weird bit of narrative all-the-planets-align kind of moment, he's ablet to pour 10 augments onto the race.
Add in the random rolls, and you just don't know. It could happen.
I think you're driving yourself nuts looking at this the wrong way.
Because the augments can be added depending on the narrative circumstances (espcially passions and relationships, as well as traits and goals and whatnot) the game isn't designed to keep a steady relationship between objective, real world values. The numbers attached to the stats ARE objective -- but how many stats can come into play in one die roll can change according to the circumstanes of the story at that moment.
Just relax about this. It's not that kind of game. If our hero has to outrun a horse to win the hand of the princess and he adds in his "Sore Loser" "In Love with the Princess," and "Hate Lunar Empire" (and his romantic rival is a Lunar) as augments for the race and he makes a couple of smart bids with cool dramatic description -- that's not a failure of physics and a disappointment, that's a cool HeroQuest moment. Everyone will cheer.
Christopher
This is an interesting discussion (about horses), more interesting than I thought it would be since I have been over this ground many times before.
Quote from: Der_RenegatIf you want, for your adventure, a hero to outrun a horse, fine, but if the narrator wants a universe where people arent able to outrun horses, then he will assign the horse a rating thats unbeatable by the hero, whatever his rating is. Even if this would mean, talking about "my" scale, that this horse had the power of a saint...!
First off, I don't see why any narrator would ever want to impose an outcome in this way. If you are adamant that the characters will not beat the horse, why even assign it a rating? What's the point? But beyond that, why would you ever want to impose an outcome in this way?
QuoteMaybe you can explain it as a view: an inside and an outside view. Any adventure and its ratings are always from the inside of the story. So the numbers relate to the playercharacters, depending on how much dramatic impact you want any opponent to have.
That's fair. Racing an old nag to win a few clacks is obviously a very different proposition from racing the Feathered Horse Queen's favourite thoroughbred Goldeneye stallion to gain the Grazers as allies in a war. However impact isn't about absolutes, it may be about how much the characetrs want to win that race. What lengths are they prepared to go to, in terms of rustling up augments or using up resources such as one-use spirits and Hero Points.
Simon Hibbs