The Forge Archives

Quote from: soru

Quote
... 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