tkdguy Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I just want to know how many people prefer low fantasy to high fantasy. I used to love high fantasy, but my interest in it gradually declined. I enjoy historical fantasy; ie set in the real world with little or no magic. I'm talking about stuff like Ivanhoe or the Father Cadfael mysteries. Even movies with wildly inaccurate stories about real people such as Shogun or Braveheart qualify. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I can't be the only one who enjoys it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syberdwarf2 Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Ladyhawke was IMHO an exceptionally well done example of low fantasy. Certainly, it had just the right mix of magic, swords and plot. Thieves' World was a great literary example of the genre. Perhaps there are some out there who would disagree with my classification of these as Low Fantasy (especially Thieves World), but they beat the heck out of the standard "DnD-esque" tripe. Not that I don't enjoy a good dungeon crawl, mind you. In fact, I have very fond memories of DnD, and still play their rules (I refuse to call it d20) on occasion. I just prefer actual roleplaying versus hack-n-slash. Make mine HERO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted October 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Definitely Ladyhawke and Thieves' World are excellent examples of the genre. I wish we'd see more of those movies. I guess Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would qualify too. I do agree that hack & slash wears thin after a while, but high fantasy doesn't have to be hack & slash any more than low fantasy, even with magical healing. Okay, I'll up the ante. Why do you prefer low fantasy to high fantasy? I just notice myself wanting more realism and logic in my campaigns (with a few examples). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syberdwarf2 Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I guess I prefer Low over High because the lack of magic or rather, the low availability of magic encourages roelplaying more. It's hard to uphold realism when Schmedrick the Whyzard can heal you at the drop of a hat. When the PC gets cut, he should bleed. Orcs have brains, they arent COMPLETE idiots; they should use them. LOTR orcs actually uphold this ideal by demonstrating a decent level of intelligence. Sure they're crude. But they arent stupid. Other gripes: GOLD IS HEAVY. When was the last time you went around with 100 AP (Anything Pieces)? Ever carry around 10 rolls of quarters? C'mon... money is hard to come by and they didn't have the printing press in Greyhawk or Waterdeep last time I checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I prefer low fantasy for three reasons: 1. I like (both as a player and a GM) long running campaigns where events and NPCs/PCs can develop over time. While it is not impossible to do this with high fantasy, it is harder, simply because of the challenge to the GM to come up with interesting, different storylines week after week, year after year. 2. Kicking off from the above, as a GM, running low fantasy is easier, since your players' options are generally more limited. Many storylines can go chaotically haywire, if your players can routinely speak with the dead, cross continents in a few hours, teleport through walls and destroy small armies. Again: it's not impossible - I have played a very satisfying "demigods" game where players could do all of the above. But it required a great deal more planning and off-the-cuff GM'ing than standard FH games. It also required a deal more creativity from the players, as the larger range of options sometimes overwhelmed them. What to do, where to go? 3. In low fantasy, players interact with the world more, making it far easier to get into character as a player and giving more gratification to the GM (well, to me, anyway, since the joy of making things up and sharing them is a large part of the joy I get out of GM'ing). What I mean is that in low fantasy, many more NPCs matter. The geography matters. In a high fantasy game, the captain of the city guard is likely irrelevant: it's the prince's reaction that matters. In the low fantasy game, both matter - even if the players never meet the prince. Likewise the tribes of the howling wilderness between Ruthin and Carmack count for precisely nothing if the players can easily fly the distance, but can be all-important if the players have to cross the distance on foot. This means the GM can use smaller areas to tell a story, leaving other parts of the game world for later (thus contributing to #1 above...) Cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightshade Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 I prefer low, but epic, fantasy. In my mind, the way to do this is to have a low fantasy setting, but then (eventually) give players access to magic. This not only makes the magic special, but makes the PCs epic in standing. It also makes magic wielding villians that much more powerful. Nightshade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 As a side note, anything you can do in Low Fantasy you can do in High Fantasy, or Middle Fantasy, or Epic Fantasy, or whatever you want to call it Fantasy. "Hack & Slash", Wargaming/tactical styles of play, and heavy-RP are all brought to the table by the GM and the players regardless of the type of campaign. While the ready availability of healing or the proliferation of magic items, and the like can all have an impact on things that occur in-play the quantity and frequency of all such things is ultimately under the GMs control. More to the point you can Hack & Slash low fantasy just as easily as high (you just have a higher fatality rate), and you can RP high fantasy as easily as low. If the players opt not towards one direction or the other or the GM promulgates his style onto their group its not a function of the sub-genre, but rather the play group. It always cracks me up to see someone mention D&D with the assumption that all you can use it for is Hack & Slash, and that all D&D games are automatically Hack & Slash. While many GMs may run their games that way, that isnt all you can do with the system. Similarly I hear people mention VtM or other WW games in the context of it must be RP-heavy, its a VtM game (or whichever) -- but again, there are plenty of H&S VtM players/games. Though a rules mechanic may encourage or tacitly endorse a style of play (such as the infamous and terrible D&D XP via killing mentality), Roleplaying comes from the players and the GM, not the rules. Give a group of players any gamesystem and they are going to spin it in the direction they prefer to play in. You can do gritty, realistic High Fantasy, and you can do farsical unrealistic low fantasy. It all depends on how skilled the GM is at moderating events and the setting to get the outcome desired. If the GM doesnt have a plan or an intent, then the players will drive it -- the most forceful or dominant player(s) will pull the world in the direction they enjoy. If the GM isnt driving the boat and the most dominant player is a RPer then the group will tend to gravitate in that direction. Vice versa, if they are a H&S or some other variety of gamer then subsequently and so on. All that aside, turn on the optional damage rules in the HERO System and strictly enforce the Healing rules and any genre becomes much deadlier/grittier in the HERO System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syberdwarf2 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Killer Shrike As a side note, anything you can do in Low Fantasy you can do in High Fantasy, or Middle Fantasy, or Epic Fantasy, or whatever you want to call it Fantasy. ... "It always cracks me up to see someone mention D&D with the assumption that all you can use it for is Hack & Slash, and that all D&D games are automatically Hack & Slash. While many GMs may run their games that way, that isnt all you can do with the system. ... Give a group of players any gamesystem and they are going to spin it in the direction they prefer to play in. Point taken. I stand corrected. Very good argument BTW, Killer Shrike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Syberdwarf2 Point taken. I stand corrected. Very good argument BTW, Killer Shrike. Er...sorry if I came off didactitorial; just a pet peeve that occasionally gets a rise out of me. In your defense however, Ill be the first to admit that far too many D&D groups are primarily Hack & Slash and I can certainly understand how people might extrapolate that to indicate that most if not all are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syberdwarf2 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Killer Shrike Er...sorry if I came off didactitorial; just a pet peeve that occasionally gets a rise out of me. In your defense however, Ill be the first to admit that far too many D&D groups are primarily Hack & Slash and I can certainly understand how people might extrapolate that to indicate that most if not all are. No offense taken. No harm, no foul. By the way, nice work on the High Fantasy Hero site. Any chance of Low Fantasy Hero site in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Syberdwarf2 By the way, nice work on the High Fantasy Hero site. Thanx! I hope people find it useful. Originally posted by Syberdwarf2 Any chance of Low Fantasy Hero site in the future? Not as such, but check out: http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/campaignToneNotes.shtml Also, Ive got it into my head to update a Warhammer FRPG conversion I did years ago to get it on the same sheet of music as the existing content, and that would have much more of an emphasis on dark, lower fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Re: Low fantasy, anyone? Originally posted by tkdguy I just want to know how many people prefer low fantasy to high fantasy. I used to love high fantasy, but my interest in it gradually declined. I enjoy historical fantasy; ie set in the real world with little or no magic. I'm talking about stuff like Ivanhoe or the Father Cadfael mysteries. Even movies with wildly inaccurate stories about real people such as Shogun or Braveheart qualify. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I can't be the only one who enjoys it. It's Brother Cadfael Mysteries, btw. And yes, I love the stark reality of the Brother Cadfael Mysteries shows, that were shown on PBS a few years ago. The props and settings, in that series, were spectacular to a Medieval Buff like me. And I'm working three scenerios for Digital Hero, set in a low fantasy setting, or more appropriately - low character point - setting. It's not completely low fantasy, though. More Tolkienish, in respect to mythology and monsters. It's more like The Hobbit, then like The Lord of the Rings: Remember Gandalf is a Fire Mage and when he couldn't even put out the fire the goblins set on his tree? It has that tone anyway. DETAILS OF CAMPAIGN: The Campaign name is Brightree. I plan on submitting a campaign supplement proposal to Hero, when I get the details, culture and feel right. Player characters are 50 character points, plus 50 points in disadvantages. Starting active points for magic are 30 pt.s. I find low fantasy helps to concentrate on the details of the setting, instead of becoming magic fixated. Special effects are very important in this kind of setting, I have found. No flashing lights and puffs of smoke for summoning. Plenty of flashing lights for fire magic, though. LOL. I am still working through the details. But I want this campaign to be a heavy dose of low fantasy, with a dash of high fantasy. If my scenario is published, I will also try to publish some character examples along with it, in a separate submission and separate article - but hopefully the same issue. I also have some new low fantasy skills, talent and perks to go along with the scenerio. O.K. don't want to bore you with more details - if you want more, I'll give you more, though. Take care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Syberdwarf2 Ladyhawke was IMHO an exceptionally well done example of low fantasy. Certainly, it had just the right mix of magic, swords and plot. Thieves' World was a great literary example of the genre. Perhaps there are some out there who would disagree with my classification of these as Low Fantasy (especially Thieves World), but they beat the heck out of the standard "DnD-esque" tripe. Not that I don't enjoy a good dungeon crawl, mind you. In fact, I have very fond memories of DnD, and still play their rules (I refuse to call it d20) on occasion. I just prefer actual roleplaying versus hack-n-slash. Make mine HERO. Make mine Hero, also. I don't think of Thieves World as a good example of low fantasy. And I don't think Lady Hawke is a tenable campaign. Even though Lady Hawke was very good, IMO. Lady Hawke is too magic deficient, I think, for my tastes. But it does give a good example of how to combine realism and fantasy. And the thief in lady hawke is 5 stars. One of the best examples of a thief that I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Syberdwarf2 I guess I prefer Low over High because the lack of magic or rather, the low availability of magic encourages roleplaying more. It's hard to uphold realism when Schmedrick the Whyzard can heal you at the drop of a hat. When the PC gets cut, he should bleed. Orcs have brains, they arent COMPLETE idiots; they should use them. LOTR orcs actually uphold this ideal by demonstrating a decent level of intelligence. Sure they're crude. But they arent stupid. Other gripes: GOLD IS HEAVY. When was the last time you went around with 100 AP (Anything Pieces)? Ever carry around 10 rolls of quarters? C'mon... money is hard to come by and they didn't have the printing press in Greyhawk or Waterdeep last time I checked. Check the Greyhawk Gazetter, take a look at the Greyhawk coin represented. Whether they say it or not, thats a minted coin. As to carrying gold around, halfway clever merchants in the Middle Ages had mules to carry all there money for them. If you study the middle Ages, like I do, you would know that there was a type of minting going on. Check some medieval coins, they were basically "stamped" like one would stamp a wax seal on a noble's letter, and the coins had the same appearance as a wax seal, but double-sided. Also, the percentage of gold in a gold piece was not that high. Much of the gold pieces were gold enameled, rather then made of solid gold. And yes, depending on the period of the Middle Ages you want to talk about, Merchants carried around letters of credit, rather then gold in large quantities. But in the early Middle Ages, it was solid (or mixed) gold, and no letters of credit were accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanguard00 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Re: Low fantasy, anyone? Originally posted by tkdguy I just want to know how many people prefer low fantasy to high fantasy. I used to love high fantasy, but my interest in it gradually declined. I enjoy historical fantasy; ie set in the real world with little or no magic. I'm talking about stuff like Ivanhoe or the Father Cadfael mysteries. Even movies with wildly inaccurate stories about real people such as Shogun or Braveheart qualify. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I can't be the only one who enjoys it. I'm a huge low fantasy fan, especially the books of David Gemmel and Guy Gavriel Kay. Both are reminiscent of true historical fiction, their respective worlds seemingly based on our own (albeit somewhat long ago...or maybe far from now). Magic is nearly invisible but known, though there are elements of spiritualism that might look familiar to standard high fantasy fans. If you're unfamiliar with their stuff, check 'em out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 David Gemmel is my favorite Fantasy Author, as it happens, followed by Dave Duncan and (old) Feist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vondy Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 My fantasy games have run the full gambit, but when left ot my own devices I tend to run low-fantasy games. There is magic, and it is powerful, but it tends to be both rare and subtle. I prefer settings and tech levels similair to the dark ages, which I've done a lot of research on. My game are known for being "epic," but they definately are definable as "low fantasy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinrin Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 I tend to like Low Fantasy settings as opposed to High Fantasy. Of course this comes from a personal bias after playing in a few d20 DnD games recently, where practically magic grows on trees. Settings like Forgotten Realms, though very good and detailed, just has too much magic flying around. My personal view is that magic should be a rare and precious thing. Having too much of it makes it loses it's special quality. Someone mentioned above that having less magic makes players focus more on role-playing through a plot than trying to solve it with powers. I have seen this myself in some of the games I have played in. I like a good fight now and then, but really like the interaction between PCs and NPCS that RPing provides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilyQuixote Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 In a high fantasy game, the captain of the city guard is likely irrelevant: it's the prince's reaction that matters. I beg to differ on this one. The last 3eD&D campaign I played in was run by Killer Shrike. In it the most feared NPC for the group (not for me though...my most feared NPC was a holy warrior of Erythnul) was a captain in the city guard. One captain Eliash of the city guard, head of the special investigations watch. He was one of nine watch captains in the city. This guy wasn't feared for his battle prowess or magical abilities or magic items. Picture Columbo from the old TV series in a fantasy world. He didn't carry any weapons...no swords,daggers, or anything of the kind. All he had was a note pad and a charcaol stick, with a frumpled watchmen's cloak. This guy was feared because of his extraordinary deductive abilities and the way he could take facts and statements and draw conclusions that would implicate the party. He would with out use of any magic items/psionics/or any kind of special abilities get the party to nearly confess to crimes they did and didn't commit. When the party tried talking their way out of the situations things only got worse for them mainly because they couldn't keep their mouths shut. It was great watching Captain Eliash work his mojo and the looks on the players faces was PRICELESS! He got one character to admit he was raised in an insane asylum. A completely different character tried to prove HIS sanity by declaring his priesthood and showing his holy symbol of Zagyg aka the mad arch-mage. Zagyg's Holy symbol for those of you who don't know is the rune of madness. As you can imagine this didn't help matters. The end result of that conversation was our 12th lvl party wizard placing Dimensional shackles on himself willingly so he could be arrested! Captain Eliash had arrested my character and was going to charge him with murder, kidnapping, assault, breaking & entering, and attempting to intoxicate city guards on duty (I bought them drinks without knowing they were sent to arrest me or hold me for questioning ). This was actually how my character was introduced to the group. Captain Eliash brought them in to identify me as the criminal to some crimes and they said I wasn't the man they saw do it. All in all after it was all said and done Eliash had to let me go. I glossed over the whole story but the gist of it is there. From then on Captain Eliash was always trying to get me on some charge but I always managed to keep my nose clean or have an air-tight alibi. Later in our adventuring careers Captain Eliash managed to arrest the entire party minus the two characters I was playing. So I returned the favor and got the group out of jail using my lawyer (yes I had an actual lawyer, believe me in Shrike's campaigns you need them:D). I let them sit in jail for three weeks while my main character got things done and they couldn't interfer. My main character was a bad mofo fighter and was the "Batman" of the fantasy world we played in (Greyhawk). He had a magic item for every occassion, and this drove the other PC's nuts. Through the course of the campaign I had set myself up as an influential buisiness man with contacts through the city and its many buearocratic levels. Because I did these things Captain Eliash basically had to leave my main PC alone unless he had rock solid evidence which I made sure was hard if not impossible to come by. The other players never bothered to do any of these things an so were harrassed by Captain Eliash basically at his whim. They feared him because they didn't want to be arrested again and they sure didn't want to owe me any more favors then they already did. This has become a rather long winded post, sorry about that. My point is that this lone NPC wouldve fit perfectly with absolutely no tweaking at all into a low fantasy campaign but was in actuallity running around in a high fantasy game and who's contact was dreaded more so then with any other NPC by the group. He never lifted a single finger against any of them or made a single threat. Sure my character was a weapon master and could have killed Eliash at anytime by himself or hired an assassin to do it but I didn't. I don't like H&S gaming either. I also liked keeping Eliash around because I could always set him on the other PC's to keep them busy if I wanted to do something sneaky that they might not have let me do otherwise. I was playing a fighter/rogue, and I like doing rogueish things:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 Originally posted by D-Man My fantasy games have run the full gambit, but when left ot my own devices I tend to run low-fantasy games. There is magic, and it is powerful, but it tends to be both rare and subtle. I prefer settings and tech levels similair to the dark ages, which I've done a lot of research on. I agree that a dose of reality is great. Contrasting the reality of the real Middle Ages, with stark unreality of magic, has a wonderful effect. I think the more you dip into the reality and details of a historical period, and draw the players into it, then suddenly, there's magic! It has a startling effect. That's the effect I want on my players, shock, awe, wonder and being flabbergasted. Of course like presence attacks, it looses it's effectiveness after the first dose. That's what I like about Tolkein, no flying mages, no teleporting sorcerors, no interdimensional travelers, just hoofing it, on foot or horse, to get to your destination. I think limiting these effects can give the game a good contrast of the reality of limited transportation of the Middle Ages, with the unreality of fire bolts killing goblins dead. Kind of like one foot in reality, and one foot in fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaughterj Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 I prefer low fantasy / swords & sorcery, e.g. , Conan, Lankhmar, etc., where magical healing isn't ever-present and transportation magics don't make trade and travel in a medieval period seem stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Originally posted by slaughterj I prefer low fantasy / swords & sorcery, e.g. , Conan, Lankhmar, etc., where magical healing isn't ever-present... I will say this, IMO healing magics are very difficult to handle in literature. In mythology, partial healing simply doesn't occur to my knowledge, unless it was cure poison or something, and the hero had to recover from the after effects of the poison. So, being that mythology is a root source for fantasy, it makes it hard to switch to partial healing, because a well-read writer or reader would fine partial healing a bit disjointed from the genre. I am working on partial healing for a story right now. It's very difficult to say, based on historical and mythological magical effects, that "and Galadorn felt his wounds close, almost completely, leaving a scab." Just doesn't seem to fit somehow, but I'm working on the conceptualization. ...and transportation magics don't make trade and travel in a medieval period seem stupid. The best example of teleportation I've seen, IMO, is in Excalibur the movie, when Merlin suddenly appears behind Arthur, or from behind a tree dozens of yards off. No puffs of smoke, or flashes of light. I can't handle teleporation that is...FLASH...ZING... the wizard is suddenly behind you! Too corny and cheesy, in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Rose Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Originally posted by Galadorn I will say this, IMO healing magics are very difficult to handle in literature. In mythology, partial healing simply doesn't occur to my knowledge, unless it was cure poison or something, and the hero had to recover from the after effects of the poison. So, being that mythology is a root source for fantasy, it makes it hard to switch to partial healing, because a well-read writer or reader would fine partial healing a bit disjointed from the genre. I am working on partial healing for a story right now. It's very difficult to say, based on historical and mythological magical effects, that "and Galadorn felt his wounds close, almost completely, leaving a scab." Just doesn't seem to fit somehow, but I'm working on the conceptualization. I would go with one of two methods. One: fast healing, with a side of partial healing. The obvious gashes are closed, mostly (some bandages and sutures might be needed) and the patient heals at an accelerated rate. I'd stat this as 1 or 2d6 of actual Healing, and either additional dice of Healing with the Gradual Effect disad, or actual Regeneration way down the Time Chart, your choice. Two: straight fast healing. The patient has a low level Regen going; maybe as much as 1 Body a day, depending on your setting. Either way, I'd make the patient pay for it, hard, in End cost. Or possibly a Side Effect: Suppress END and REC. People healing need to rest, a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Actually, partial healing happens a lot in Fantasy - both the mythological version and the modern version. To use arthurian myth as an example, after Arthur fought Pellinore, he was dying from his wounds (technically, below 0 BOD, I guess). The Hermit of the chapel healed his wounds, so that he did not die, but Arthur was too ill to continue his quest for some time. In other words, the Hermit said to Merlin "OK, I've healed him up above 0 BOD, so he won't die, but that's all I can manage with two crummy dice of healing. He'll have to heal up some more before getting in any fights". This healed, but only partly, effect crops up multiple times in Arthurian myth (the quest of Lamorak's sons also springs to mind). Cuchulain's wounding was also only partially healed after the battle at the ford. And that good old chestnut LOTR has the same thing where Eowyn is healed by Aragorn - but only partly. So I have no problem with it in gaming. I have more of a problem with the "Poof! Good as new!" style of healing. While it certainly occurs in fantasy, it is normally associated with holy relics, great quests, etc. Not only is it a problem with regard to game balance, it just seems (apart from exceptional cases as mentioned above) a bit "unfantasy" to me. Personal taste, I guess. It goes along for my liking for low fantasy. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galadorn Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Originally posted by Black Rose I would go with one of two methods. One: fast healing, with a side of partial healing. The obvious gashes are closed, mostly (some bandages and sutures might be needed) and the patient heals at an accelerated rate. I'd stat this as 1 or 2d6 of actual Healing, and either additional dice of Healing with the Gradual Effect disad, or actual Regeneration way down the Time Chart, your choice. Two: straight fast healing. The patient has a low level Regen going; maybe as much as 1 Body a day, depending on your setting. Either way, I'd make the patient pay for it, hard, in End cost. Or possibly a Side Effect: Suppress END and REC. People healing need to rest, a lot. I was talking about literature, not FRPGs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.