>From: Doug Bonar <dbonar_at_...>
>The example of the noble on the pyramid pretty much included what
>people reacted negatively to when we tried HQ. Running down the
>character sheet trying to think of a way to link in every line for
>every contest. How the defeat manefested itself not necessarily
>having anything to do with the contest.
These are perspective things, and the examples don't provide enough context unfortunately. For example, when Josh is "running down the character sheet" it's not because he's trying to ensure that his character does well (as a way of ensuring that people understand that he, as a player, is playing "well" in terms of addressing the "challenge" that the contest represents). He's doing it for our benefit, because when it's not about competition, it's about "discovering" the character. I encourage players to look for more augments all the time, or suggest them myself. Because I too am invested in finding out how the character is invested in the contest.
To that extent, when the contest isn't that engaging, few augments get pulled out. And that could mean a theoretically lethal fight in some cases. We've resolved muggings with just primary abilities and no augments. Put another way, when you play this way, you augment only as much as is interesting. Since there's no onus to "win" (and I hate using that word here, but), there's no reason to troll the character sheet after it's no longer interesting to do so. The digging only goes on as long as it's interesting to the players. Not just the one player, but the whole group. A community consensus forms, again, as to what makes sense when, and people stick to it, because it's their only incentive.
Also, "not neccessarily having anything to do with the contest" is extrememly subjective, and linked to old RPG thinking. That is, in D&D there's no rule for an "essence flow attaches itself to the nearest magical focus." But, actually, as it happens, there is precedence in Rolemaster for it - on the magical fumbles table. Shadow World was originally written for RM, and so this sort of thing is somewhat encoded into the rules. So, actually I was working off of a pretty standard sort of failure for the setting.
But that said, Josh didn't know that this was the sort of thing that was on the RM charts. We weren't playing RM. The fact is that it seemed plausible to him because it's the sort of thing that happens in fantasy worlds. Most systems, in being more rigid, don't allow for you to do this sort of thing, having discretely laid out results for failure. Even in Rolemaster where it can happen, it's so rare that it'll probably never happen once in a campaign. In HQ, as narrator I have the authority to make sure that it happens when it needs to happen to make things interesting. Because nowhere does it say that the result of a magic failure is the spell just not working. In fact, HQ implies that something else may well be happening to support the potential penalty that one can apply with failure.
To put some more perspective on this, when I read your statement, "the defeat not neccessarily having anything to do with the contest" I was lost for a moment, and couldn't even think of what you were talking about. I didn't include this in the example because I thought it was exeptional in this way, it was just happenstance. From my POV, the result neccessarily had to do everything with the contest. :-)
>Stated more tactically as driving one
>raider off from imminently attacking her kids, the results seem more
>clear. Though when we tried HQ, that type of tactical exchange pulled
>us back towards multiple simple contests as a substitute for
>attack/damage/defense rolls.
Not to be snarky, but...just don't state things tactically. State them thematically in terms of character goals. It's only when you force yourself to use the traditional terms of RPGs that you feel this need. There's nothing "default" about "attack/damage/defense." That's a construct completely unique to Wargames and other RPGs. In terms of relating events in a fantasy world, there's no reason to go with it. Find me the Tolkien passage where you can see the attack rolls, and maybe I'll believe otherwise. HQ does a far better job than D&D, and indeed almost any other RPG at producing the sort of narration that you read in Tolkien (or, indeed, Stafford).
>Obvioiusly what I most need (re: HQ at least) is to play in a few
>games with those for whom the system is working well. Any con games
>coming up in NJ or NYC?
Well, that might help, if you really think that you want to move to this style of play. Other modes are just as valid, and might be more fun for you. I don't claim that how I play works for everyone.
That said, if you're interested, come lurk at my IRC game. Anyone's welcome to do so. It plays most Thurday nights at 8:00 PM US Central Time - which means about 9 hours from this posting.
Server: linuxguy.magicstar.net
Room: #indierpgs
That's the "social" room, and from there we can direct you to the game rooms. Note that watching IRC has got to be dread dull, because it's even somewhat slow playing it at times, given the delays in the media. But, who knows, you might get something out of it. (And be forwarned, people have been known to catch a case of Player Character from lurking on my game). ;-)
Mike
Powered by hypermail