Mystics

[Ian O'Rourke]

Can someone describe the rules for Mystic Magic into plain English for me? I'm either missing something or the Mystics don't do much?

Also, how are people using Magic generally? I can see how a Wizard with a Grimoire of Fire Magic can launch lethal flame at an opponent (loss of Ap in a contest) or Raise a Wall of Fire (loss or transfer of AP) and so on, but what about making a light to light his way and have it last for hours?

Going back to the Wall of Fire example, what would jumping through it be simulated by the loss/transfer of AP in inherent in the roll of casting the spell? Or would that be somehow figured out when the apponent decides to make the leap? How would that be adjudicated?

When is the second edition coming out anyway, and will it feel like your reading a game rather than decoding an ancient manuscript?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

That's actually quite a wad of questions in your post, and I'm not sure whether, individually, they actually matter, or whether the barrage itself is the point. I'll try to deal with a couple of them.

1) I don't know of anyone using the Mystic magic as written in actual play, and I am given to understand that the revised rules include a lot of changes to this section. In my own game, a couple of NPCs were Taraltara worshippers, and I used the Secret of that cult at least once - as such, it worked fine, but that basically ignores all the body-mind-spirit business from a PC standpoint that's central to the Mystic rules.

2) You might consider distinguishing from old-style "utility" magic (make a light that lasts for hours) from Gloranthan "meaningful magic" (shine out our path just as Aegisthex's path was lighted by Elmal, in the myth of the Grey Maiden). I have no idea who Aegisthex or the Grey Maiden are, as I just made them up. But that's how you get your path lighted in a dark place, is by talking and thinking like that.

It's more than mere Color. It's a matter of remembering that in Glorantha, "the marvellous is an aspect of the real," to quote Robertson Davies. Thus here I am "Fire Mage" (a terrible phrase right there, totally indicative of game-think Ars Magica rather than than the necessary mind-set for Hero Wars), and I want to light our way, using my Fire affinity through my worship of Elmal.

If I'm initiated to Elmal, I'd do something that lights fire anyway, or have a friend do it (say, any ability involving camping or whatever), and use the affinity to augment. If I'm devoted to Elmal, I'd use a Feat associated with that affinity, if I had one; otherwise I'd use the initiate method. Also note that the initiate method (ie augmenting) may use a Feat at -5.

3) Looking back at your post, I realize that your question concerns sorcery, not theistic magic. And you know what? It's even easier - unless you have a spell that concerns lighting your way, you're screwed. "Fire Magic" doesn't cut it - sorcery, as written, is about fixed effects with fixed purposes. It won't stop you from lighting a torch or lantern with your Ignite (or whatever), but no insta-flashlights if you're using western sorcery and don't have a spell for it. Yes - sorcery is vastly more limited in day-to-day application than theistic magic.

4) I also suggest thinking in terms of Simple Contests first (degrees of success, victory/defeat levels) rather than Extended Contests (Action Points). Your Wall of Fire and jumping-through-it examples are easy as pie.

You've got this Wall up, right? What was your degree of success? Oh, a Success? Fine. Then whenever my character dives through it, now, later, whenever, his result will be compared to that Success. Thus if my guy gets a Failure, we compare your Success and my Failure, and my guy has received a Minor Defeat.

Just to nail down this example, as a GM, I'd interpret that as (a) my guy NOT getting through the Wall and (b) being a tad burnt, especially his clothes and so on. I'd probably assign an off-the-cuff -1 to everything for a little while. [If you want to be more precise, it's possible.] Note that the key issue is that he does not, not, not get through the wall - and no, no second tries. This is conflict resolution, not task resolution (as implied by your use of the word "simulate" in your question, by the way).

Also, to nail it down even further, don't forget that his Failure might have been bumped to Success by spending a Hero Point, thus forcing the issue to a comparison of the actual dice values.

5) Final point: #4 is the foundational thinking of Hero Wars (or Hero Quest) resolution. Extended Contests with their Action Points are a sophisticated version of the very same thing, so I suggest that understanding Simple Contests is the key hurdle.

Best,
Ron

[Ian O'Rourke]

That's actually quite a wad of questions in your post, and I'm not sure whether, individually, they actually matter, or whether the barrage itself is the point. I'll try to deal with a couple of them.

Your zen-like observations are interesting as usual. The barrage of questions may well be the point. Hero Wars and me sit in a strange place. I read it and I understand it, but I think I need to take that understanding to the next level (which may not be possible until actual play, I'm not sure). I have a very strong feeling it may be that one system that defines how I think a role-playing game should be: the removal of 'rules actions' from explicit character actions; the investment of emotion/relationships into the protagonists actions; the use of dramatic logic over 'simulationist' logic and so on. I love the way a character can use an honour 'stat' as his way of resisting a spell, or his love for an individual (should the spell be trying to get him to hurt her, etc). This feeling I've found a match is confounded by some obvious, old-style concepts, which are brought to the fore by me only understanding some of your descriptions. You posses a deeper, more familiar knowledge of the rules than I, and you are more comfortable with them.

1) I don't know of anyone using the Mystic magic as written in actual play, and I am given to understand that the revised rules include a lot of changes to this section. In my own game, a couple of NPCs were Taraltara worshippers, and I used the Secret of that cult at least once - as such, it worked fine, but that basically ignores all the body-mind-spirit business from a PC standpoint that's central to the Mystic rules.

Okay, not so much an issue, I just suspect a monk-like character may be created in the game, should it go ahead. And I started looking at the Magic as a result - but I suspect I can just do the same with keywords. His unique ability to fight unarmed can just be a keyword/stat and possibly some edges (to make his hands as lethal as blades and such-like).

2) You might consider distinguishing from old-style "utility" magic (make a light that lasts for hours) from Gloranthan "meaningful magic" (shine out our path just as Aegisthex's path was lighted by Elmal, in the myth of the Grey Maiden). I have no idea who Aegisthex or the Grey Maiden are, as I just made them up. But that's how you get your path lighted in a dark place, is by talking and thinking like that.

It's more than mere Color. It's a matter of remembering that in Glorantha, "the marvellous is an aspect of the real," to quote Robertson Davies. Thus here I am "Fire Mage" (a terrible phrase right there, totally indicative of game-think Ars Magica rather than than the necessary mind-set for Hero Wars), and I want to light our way, using my Fire affinity through my worship of Elmal.

Yeah, the terms I used in the post were more to do with brevity and ease of description than anything else - it may have actually confused the issue more. I realise a more mythical take is in order, and I am comfortable with that, but I sort of went for the traditional in my post.

The trouble is the game is not Glorantha-based. I'm trying to run a game in a Mythic England style of setting - a bit like Robin of Sherwood, and the setting (not the Mages, etc) in Ars Magica. An England in which the myths and beliefs of the time may have been true. I want a level of heroism, not a gritty realistic game, and at the moment I have two systems at the opposite end of the spectrum competing to be the engine: D&D and Hero Wars. D&D is the safe bet, Hero Wars could be the choice that sinks the idea or raises it to the next level.

The major forms of magic would be Theist (for the Christians and Druids may be) and then Sorcery for the very rare Wizards - who have to scrounge around for books of ancient lore. These templates work well, and magic is rare in all cases - the Christian Priest who can use Theist magic, with suitable affinities (healing, protection, etc) would be the sort of person who becomes a saint, part of the mythology that surrounds the times.

I realise this may make my transition to Hero Wars more troublesome, but I'm sure it's less troublesome than understanding Glorantha? I intend to use the description method to get the characters, and I still need to figure out some way of getting the keywords in without the culture, occupation, and religion framework. I'm thinking of just seeing what descriptions come in and then figuring out the keywords then.

3) Looking back at your post, I realize that your question concerns sorcery, not theistic magic. And you know what? It's even easier - unless you have a spell that concerns lighting your way, you're screwed. "Fire Magic" doesn't cut it - sorcery, as written, is about fixed effects with fixed purposes. It won't stop you from lighting a torch or lantern with your Ignite (or whatever), but no insta-flashlights if you're using western sorcery and don't have a spell for it. Yes - sorcery is vastly more limited in day-to-day application than theistic magic.

Okay, in actual play I would probably have to keep an eye on liberal interpretation of spells. In the example above would he have to make a contest to ignite the lantern or would that be automatic? I also assume this is instant magic unless he wants to keep the firebrand alight in a severe rainstorm?

You can tell I've recently been reading the Advanced Magic Chapter?

Note that the key issue is that he does not, not, not get through the wall - and no, no second tries. This is conflict resolution, not task resolution (as implied by your use of the word "simulate" in your question, by the way).

I realise I sometimes mix terms that I do not take as that important, but to those on the forge I end up imparting something totally different to what I mean. By simulate I just meant how do I handle/resolve the issue of someone coming along later and jumping through the flames.

The example above is interesting as how come he cannot get through the wall? It's just too hot? The next guy succeeds and he leaps through? Players will ask why he can't do the same? And why can't he try again?

5) Final point: #4 is the foundational thinking of Hero Wars (or Hero Quest) resolution. Extended Contests with their Action Points are a sophisticated version of the very same thing, so I suggest that understanding Simple Contests is the key hurdle.

Without doubt I think you are correct here and I think (problems with describing the AP loss in some Extended Contests aside) this is the biggest problem most people encounter with Hero Wars. Heh, at least I'm aware I'm having a problem with it and not just denouncing it is crap without rating it as it is meant to be played?

Anyway, I admit I do have problems with Simple Contests. While I yearn to be free of action/reaction combat systems, or having the action dictated specifically in the rules I also find the leap to scene resolution difficult. A character comes up to despatch two guards at a gate. I realise this should not be an Extended Contest, as it is not that important to the story, it exists to make the character look cool at best, but at the same time the one-roll, life or death things gets to me.

He rolls, and gets a failure - it's all so quick and so final (even though it may not mean death).

I need to have one of those Jesse Burnenko (may have spelled that wrong) moments of clarity but my beef is not so much the goals of narrativism, but getting grips with the systems, specifically Hero Wars, that have it at their core.

I'm pretty sure Hero Wars is the one, as it has some meat to it, and works on a good dramatic logic level, without being a 'just make it up' system.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

Damn good post. I think you've described your cognitive and creative situation extremely clearly.

Perhaps enlisting your players into these questions might help? If I'm not mis-reading you, some of your concerns are more about (a) how they might react to your calls during play and (b) how you would then cope with their reactions. Perhaps it might be good to discuss the basics before play, rather than during it.

This idea might help: scenes and conflicts might be differentiated, so that using Simple Conflicts doesn't mean resolving multiple-instance problems (a full scene). Thus each guard at the gate might be a Simple Conflict of his own. This can go a long way toward resolving mental difficulties about "solving too much with one roll."

In the movie Gladiator, for instance, I'd say the chariot-combat scene is a series of Simple Contests - it's too big and involved for one single Simple Contest, and it's not quite emotionally oomphy enough for an Extended Contest.

The whole "but why can't I try again" thing is going to be a big, big hurdle for traditional players. The Wall of Fire thing ... no matter what, the guy who failed to go through it, ain't going through. When a player asks "But why?" that very question indicates a lack of commitment to what the system is supposed to be doing, and I suggest that you or any GM or any other player will not, at that moment, be able to instil that commitment in that player in the middle of (a) play and (b) a conflict in which his character has failed.

To break it down further, the older method of looking at the problem is stategic: (a) I try to go through, and I succeed or fail; (b) if I fail, I look over my sheet and try another tactic, and I succeed or fail; (c) if I fail, and if I'm still a functional character (ie unwounded, or not dead yet), repeat. Whereas the Hero Wars mode of play is more about foundations for conflict - once failed (barring a completely different solution, like calling on magic rather than on personal determination), the impenetrability of the Wall of Fire has become a foundational element of the situation. In other words, the rolls that fail may be thought of as building blocks of the eventual situation/conflict/climax to come.

So again, maybe the next step is to take these issues to the Social Contract, group-discussion level and see what happens there.

Best,
Ron

[Ian O'Rourke]

I'm not sure this post has a point, but it is sort of a reply to your last post and the closest thing I came come to 'Actual Play' to give it some context.

The group I am in at the moment has the blessing (in this case it is, though I can see how it could be a curse) of all the players being GM's, even if they are unlikely to GM anything. We had either been out of play for years (several in my case) or are not that satisfied with our gaming. The exception to this was the D&D campaign we ran for about a year and a half (my first game of any sort for four years at that point). This finished before Christmas. It was very good and we all enjoyed it.

Our goals were at odds with the system though. I could explain how I feel about that here, but I think this link does it better: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/gaminglife14feb02.html

Previous to this article Neil (the GM of the D&D game) and myself, as the primary people likely to GM, have had the discussion about systems 'more appropriate' to our goals a number of times. Sometimes he has shown signs of not seeing the point, but I'm pretty sure he was playing devils advocate.

At the moment I am in a bind. I do want to GM again, but every time I try and set-up a game I don't get past the character creation/idea development phase. I never move from the development stage to the first session of play.  A number of reasons exist for this, but one underlying one is my need to try something that may spur things beyond the accepted norms. I had a period of great gaming, albeit with more traditional systems, sometime ago (before the four year gap) with another group. I don't just want to repeat that, I feel the need to move on.

I don’t want the system to be this 'third entity' that just sits there to facilitate interaction with the world and nothing much else. I want it to be an element that works on a dramatic logic, not a (theoretically anyway) simulationist logic. I want it to provide and drive the story almost as much as the players. Support the story, nurture the protagonists, and not hinder them at every turn.

I am lucky in that I would not have players that are slaves to 'realism' or 'simulation' - they would be happy with the dramatic logic Hero Wars provides once the contract was understood. As an example, time and distance very much followed dramatic logic in our 3e campaign, rather than how long it would actually really take to travel to a specific place, or if nine months had actually really passed before a baby was born (we just assumed it did, etc).

So this is a long post to say you are probably correct on the contract issue. The rest would depend on play.

You have an interesting point on the Simple Task Resolutions - it is scene resolution but what constitutes the scene? While examples such as these are sometimes risky, it might be best to use Lord of the Rings as we have probably both seen it. The battles with all the Orcs at the end are probably all simple contests, each being a rapidly cut scene. Contest win - Orc Dies by Legolas's arrow. Contest Win - he cuts the throat of one with his knife, and so on.

The fight with the leader was an extended contest with Aragorn and the Orc? This coming after Aragorn made numerous simple contests to despatch a lot of cannon-fodder? Though I suppose on dramatic necessity bunches of Orcs could be despatched on a simple contest?

Still concerned about failing such an all or nothing roll - no matter how you split it. I understand the need not to labour on the inconsequential, the full combat system being used on ever single Orc (as would be the case in 3e) is ridiculous, but I normally handle this with a 'Mook Rule'. As an example, even if we move to fast editing, and have the fight at the gate with three guards be three simple contests (imagine it as three fastly edited fights) that could be three contests of say 17 (for the hero) and 8 for each guard? That is not good odds. Each guard has 40% chance of getting a success? If the player fails he also (though he does only 15% chance of doing so) he looses? Does that mean he receives an injury that puts him out of the fight? I may be missing something again, or looking at it from the wrong perspective.

I really need to move to play I think. I see a lot of similarities in how I envisage a Mythic England and how Glorantha works on a thematic level. As I would see the individual stories as legends - so each story would be like a re-telling of Beowulf or something.

Interesting as always.

[Mike Holmes]

The key to conflict resolution, for me, is to look at the resolution not as "did the character succeed?' so much as "which way does the plot go now?" A successful roll means that the plot goes in that direction. A failure means the plot goes in some other direction. The player must consider their character's continued action from Author mode in the case of failure. They must retroactively assign a motive explaining why the character doesn't try again. Even if it's just "he decides to try something else".

Player thinking out loud on his character's failure: "The system says Elvic doesn't get through the flames. What will he do instead?"

Mike

[Ian O'Rourke]

The key to conflict resolution, for me, is to look at the resolution not as "did the character succeed?' so much as "which way does the plot go now?" A successful roll means that the plot goes in that direction. A failure means the plot goes in some other direction. The player must consider their character's continued action from Author mode in the case of failure.

I think you are right, and I have no problem with this, I also think the players I have would accept that quite easily. I'm not so sure my issues with Hero Wars are to do with what the game is trying to achieve, though a few issues do linger, but how it is going about achieving them. I also think this problem has less to do with a problem with the rules (as I see it), but my lack of understanding in applying them.

I think the main problem can be summed up by me saying: "I think there is more to them than I am giving them credit for."

I see the problems people, and hence myself, have with Hero Wars as follows:

(1) Problems with simple contest resolving a whole conflict in one go.
(2) Problems with actually realising the depth and relationships between the various rules and contest types
(3) Problems getting the most out of the abstract AP loss/gains in Extended Contests
(4) Not fully removing them from simulationist thinking

(The above assumes the person does not find the system overly alien in the first place, and hence only sees the 'game within a game' or the 'make it up magic' and uses these 'insights' as arguments as to why the system does not work.)

I probably suffer from all four, but I've put them in the order of prominence, as far as I'm concerned. I am happy with (4), though I'm not egotistical enough to say I've removed all vestiges of 'traditional RPG thinking' from my brain, and I am okay with (3) though I'll admit some contest types may need a bit of practice. I put (3) and (4) in the just needs a bit of practice, nothing to worry about category.

I think (1) and (2) are still the biggest hindrance to me being comfortable with the system I see as having so much potential (for me). I also think these two problems inter-relate as far as I am concerned. I think a bit more awareness of the issues involved in (2) might erase (1).

An example for discussion (no doubt a bad one, as they are not Gloranthan examples, and I may mix-up Hero Wars terms)…

Robin De'Bracey, Knight Templar, strides towards a Monastery guarded by three guards. I rate this as three quickly edited together Simple Contests as the camera cuts from one brief fight to the next. Robin has the Sword and Shield keyword at 17, and the guards each have Sword and Shield at 8 (which is probably too low, it should probably be 12). I've rolled these dice live, just now, and Robin failed on the third roll. Robin got a 12, but the guard got an 8. As a result the guard gets a marginal victory. The scene plays out as two guards being quickly despatched (just like Aragorn seeing of the nameless Uruk-Kai), followed by the third guard getting a marginal victory against Robin. What does that mean? I realise it does not necessarily mean death but either way (a) someone gets to choose what it means and (b) Robin undoubtedly fails to get passed the guard. If this had been a system offering more two and throw fighting, action/reaction, etc, which is not what I want for such an inconsequential combat, but I use it to show my point, Robin would have probably have won as the guard would have had to succeed more than once to claim victory. Anyway, the upshot is the hero of the piece has been brought down (though not necessarily killed I realise) by a background character.

Is the answer higher skills for the main protagonists? After all, I'm obviously looking for the characters to be action heroes or something. Okay, I give Robin a Sword and Shield keyword at 5w -  a mastery. If we play out the same fight between him and the three guards he cannot loose against these opponents if done as three, individual, Simple Contests? The reason being:

(1) He as an effective skill of 20 in each Simple Contest so he gets a success or higher pretty much all the time (unless he rolls a 1).
(2) Even if the guard gets a success, by rolling under 12, and it is lower than Robin's roll, Robin gets to bump the result due to him having a mastery over his opponent.

In a way the above makes sense, as the character has a solid, professional ability with his weapons of choice. Would such a master swordsman be brought down by three ruffians in armour? Probably not, but to have zero chance of failing against them? While part of me says, yeah, well he probably would not fail, the other part of me says what is the point in rolling, as the rolls are not longer disctating some of the drama of the story?

I've sort of gone from the characters being too weak for my action hero sensibilities to being unbeatable by the regular masses. The guards could be attacking him at once, even though it is three simple contests - this would mean the last guard would face Robin with a Sword and Shield keyword reduced to 19, which helps little.

Hence my theory that I may be missing some of the richness in the rules and how they all relate to each other.

Final Note: I went over the rules shown in this post at 1400 hours when I was working with the system (heh, it has so much potential I'm sweating buckets here, I'd have given up on anything else by now). It's now 00:20, and I've not re-checked my facts, but Im pretty sure I have them correct.

[Valamir]

Well the guard got a marginal victory...that doesn't necessarily mean he defeated the knight nor prevented him from getting past.  Think bigger.

What's coming up next for Robin?

Does Robin need to get into the castle quickly before they shut the gates?...ok, dispatching all 3 guards means he makes it plenty of time...opps he failed on the third guard...that doesn't mean he failed to beat him...just that he failed to beat him QUICKLY.  Now he has to make another roll to get through the gate, where as if he'd succeeded he wouldn't need to roll for the gate.

Was Robin trying to cow the leader of the guards into submission by slaughtering his men with ease?...Well, the last guy actually gave him trouble, leaving the leader to think "This Robin isn't as good as everyone says he is" and so now Robins marginal failure with the third guard translates into a greater likelyhood of having to fight the leader to.

Does Robin need to get to the dungeon to stop his friend from being tortured...well, that little delay with the third guard just cost his friend another finger and some serious agony.


In other words, failure does not mean lack of success.  Failure can just as easily mean success...but with additional complications.

[Ian O'Rourke]

In other words, failure does not mean lack of success.  Failure can just as easily mean success...but with additional complications.

True, but is could sort of get rediculous if every such failure is transferred to something else? It's a very good point though.

Is this the actual intention of the rules? Or just a suggested spin? It does not bother me either way, but since I'm curious about the rules at the moment it would be interesting to know if this is the intended 'mode of play' inherent within the rules.

I also suspect the rules come into it somehow - as such a failure, say the example of the leader realising Robin is not so hard, could bring in some of the rules? Again, I comeback to me realising I may be missing a lot of the richness of the ruleset.

I believe something exists about characters gaining bonuses/minuses (I forget the official rules term) to rules because of roll-overs from other conflicts. May be the leader gets to augment his opening roll due to the confidence inspired by Robin's failure to look super-cool?

I get the point, I even like it, but I am wondering what the effect over the long term would be in actual play - as players realise that failures are being removed around so much and may not effect them immediately? As an example, on the players marginal victories the he chose to despatch the guards (take them out of the scene, I realise they just be injured not dead), it's logical to think 'Why is the guards marginal failure just a knock to the ground and a disadvantage later...mmmmm?'. Is this not a sort of railroading by lack of carrying through with the roll? I want him to get in to fight the leader so I'll alter the consequences of the roll. I'd be doing that on a lot of simple contests with the odds presented?

Take the Gladiator example above, Maximus (assuming the 17 against 8 profile) may have failed at say 2 of his simple contests during the fight with the chariots. He got away without a scratch, though he may be disadvantaged, while his successes took people out of the fight. Of course, Maximus may have won all his simple contests, but that is sort of circular logic, and the above is just an example of a possible play sequence with a movie as visuals.

But then I suspect this is also 'get the right approach mindset and it won't matter' sort of issue :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

Again, I think it's a matter of the players knowing all about the "moving failures" thing before play begins. That way, there is no "Hey, lookit what the GM's doin'" realization and resentment. Similarly, part of your worries stem from extrapolating the technique to every instance, and I don't see any reason to do that in the first place. It should apply mainly (not necessarily always) to Minor and Marginal Failures, whereas a Complete Failure is, indeed, when the hero takes a solid smack to the helm, sees stars, and simply fails to defeat the guard.

Speaking from a lot of play, the Mastery and Bumping thing is no guarantee of success. For one thing, the circumstances of a conflict can render it much harder, such that Masteries are either reduced by penalties or cancelled out (depending on which end you modify). For another, that nasty Fumble or the odd opposing Critical do show up.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hero Wars is about heroes. A starting fighter will be at a mastery and some (25?). Against guards of 12. And he will win almost every time. The small chance of success is to provide a twist in the plot in which the bizzare does happen and the hero loses. But how often does Lancelot lose against, oh, say, giants? Never. Lancelot never loses against unnamed foes (in fact does he ever lose?). In HW you et to play such a hero. He will only lose when it makes sense, or once in a while for a twist.

This is similar to the mook rule in Feng Shui without needing a mook rule. In some cases it is not appopriate to lose. This allows players to take appopriate actions without concern. Three against one? Ha! I could take ten of their sort!

BTW, I do believe that the concept of shifting failure is actually in the rules somewhere. But if you don't like shifting, be creative. The guard gets a minor success? Then his sword caused a small gash across the character's brow causing him to bleed on the scarf given to him by the lady at he tournament (what effect will this have? who knows write it down for later). I like Ralph's delay idea.

Here's a better key than the one above. Remember I mentioned plot directions beong the result of the resolution? Well, that's incomplete. The resolution system creates plot directions for the player characters. I specify that because the system is designed (at least by Ron's take) to create stories for the PCs. So a victory for the guard is not narrated in terms of protaonizing the guard, or expanding on his story. He doesn't get a story (poor Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, your fates are too, too cruel).  No the failure is the player character's. It serves somehow to further his story.

Even major villains. They can have resolution work a little for them, so as to make them interesting and credible foes. But that is only so that the PC interaction with them is interesting. This is why such villains get a complete set of stats. The more stats you have the more effective you are, and the more important to the story.

Keep in mind that a PC with only 17 should still be able to take the three guards with 12, by augmenting. The character has a relationship with the character being tortured in the castle? That could be a huge augmentation. The generic guards will hav no such augmentation (oh, perhaps a loyalty to their master if he is really cool). Essentially, players are discouraged against trying stunts like charging the three guards unless they have a good reason. If they don't the game will provide a plot element in having the character incarcerated (don't be afraid to hose characters occasionally, especially to get things going).

Get the idea across to your players that resolution is to direct the fates of the PCs alone, as Ron said before play, and you'll be off to the races.

Mike

[Ian O'Rourke]

Speaking from a lot of play, the Mastery and Bumping thing is no guarantee of success. For one thing, the circumstances of a conflict can render it much harder, such that Masteries are either reduced by penalties or cancelled out (depending on which end you modify). For another, that nasty Fumble or the odd opposing Critical do show up.

Okay, I can accept that, as nothing counts more than actual play. I obviously need to may be stop being hesitent and get some actual play into the game.

I just like to avoid the teething issues with the system, such as using the modifiers you mention above correctly (to get the system running well), confusing the goals we are trying to achieve as a group.

[Ian O'Rourke]

Get the idea across to your players that resolution is to direct the fates of the PCs alone, as Ron said before play, and you'll be off to the races.

Okay, I can live with all that, remotely similar to the Saga system (another game I like I never got around to playing) in which everything is player driven, via the playing of card, and player controlled with the bad guys, the world, spells just acting as something that resists them. Interesting, never spotted that similarity before.

I really do think the key is me seeing the system working better is the richness that may be only comes as actual play - how the modifiers are supposed to be applied.

It's being brave enough to do it, and then hoping the system issues don't corrupt the ideal. I suppose I don't like system experimentation in play, a function of not liking systems that get in the way I suppose.

Anyway, interesting.

[Valamir]

Yeah, I have a feeling theres ALOT that has to be acquired through actual play.

My experience with Hero Wars went through 3 phases.

1) Holy cow this stuff is awesome, having just read Rune Quest I was totally blown away by HW.  Amazing, Fantastic, Wondrous.

2) Could they have possibly made the rulebook any MORE dense and difficult to use?  Hmmm...lets see.
   Crappy Trade Paperback format?  check
   Rules integrated with flavor cover to cover rather than summarized succinctly in one place? check
   Vague jargony concepts, inadequately and incompletely explained?  check
   Multiple references to stuff you'll need in one of these forthcoming splat books that will take forever to get released?  check

Nope...they pretty much pulled out all the stops in the crusade to render the book totally inaccessable to the casual reader.

3) If I'M having difficulty teasing out all of the rules from this game, how in the hell am I EVER going to teach this to my gaming group.  A group that demands the GM to actually know the rules of the game BEFORE sitting down to play.   I had visions of the following exchange:  
Them:  "How do we..."
Me:  "Ummm, well, I'm not really sure..."
Flip flip flip "I'm having trouble finding that, but I know I read it here somewhere".
Them: "Lets play d20, we already all know the rules for that."


Therefor I've never actually had the opportunity to play, although I've always wanted to...come to think of it, I can't remember if I listed HW on the recent profile thread or not...

[Ian O'Rourke]

That was a pretty good way of summing it up :)