Re: HQ

From: Steven E. Barnes (
Date: Sat 18 May 1996 - 04:57:40 EEST

Lewis Jardine <> writes:

> I agree with AB? about the problem with super RQ mechanics is the
>whole system rapidly disintergrates into Onslaughtian biting contests
>much above 100%. As mentioned earlier I use a very simple mechanic for
>my Gloranthan roleplaying which is based around a double open-endded
>d10 roll. This is (I think) similar to the Vampire mechanics (advocated
>by AB) and stops the total dominance by people over 100%.

I believe you are using the term "open-ended" differently. You
are, I assume, proposing to keep rolling the d10 each time a ten
comes up. In Vampire, you roll a number of d10 equal to your
skill rating.

>simplified mechanics (opposed open-endded d10 rolls) produces a faster
>game without losing much of the RQ feel. The open-endded mechanic
>stops really gross characters from feeling too secure.

If I am interpreting things correctly, in your system, there is a minute
chance that a high-level character will get hosed by a trollkin
open-ending a couple times. In my opinion, this type of varience
does not really help role-playing. It results in characters dying
during trivial battles, rather than during the climactic battle you
have spent weeks building up to.

Agreed that long combats tend to get boring though. I am toying with
using an improvised system myself. But given that the people I play
with have rules-fetishes, I will probably be making secret dice rolls
(and ignoring the results) to keep them fooled.

Here's some belated responses to earlier remarks on HQ:

"Selfish" heroes: some claim that "selfish" heroes such as Harrek
will be forgotten, because they do not share the power gained from
their quests with their people. If that were true, why do humans
still remember Arkat? (He did teach sorcery to the Trolls, but
presumably, he didn't lose personal use of Sorcery because of this)

There was some concern, as how to convince us power gamers to
stop playing "selfish" heroes. Some solutions:

1) Stop worrying. We are having fun, and it isn't in your game.

2) Make the numbers more reasonable. The number quoted, allegedly
by Stafford, was that you could either have +100% for yourself,

or +10% for the clan. If the numbers were +40% for myself, or
+10% for the clan, it would be more likely to happen.

- -steve


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:32 EEST