Objective vs Subjective Numbers

From: Mark Galeotti <mark_at_...>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:25:58 -0000

Comrades!

Just to chime in on this whole business of how much guidance and consistency we need in terms of resistances and what ability numbers mean, as has been said, there is a pretty fundamental divergence here.

1. There are those whose notions of common sense require some level of consistency and in any case want to feel that a number should mean something concrete, that two Big 1W20 creatures are about the same size, etc. By corollary, then tend -- in the main -- to feel that numbers ought not only to be objective but be independent of context. Sure, there may be tweaks and exceptions, but you know in advance if that Humakti in the road is Fell Swordsman 1W3 and it's a question of whether the heroes try to take him.
2. There are those who embrace the notion that the numbers refer to a more abstract notion of how important that attribute may be in play; the two beasts may actually be different sizes, but one is able to 'use' its Big more effectively. Likewise, this can tends (and again, I'd stress that I'm talking broadly here) to assume that numbers can be assigned on the fly and in the interests of the story. There's a Humakti in the road and the heroes need to get past him? If the interests of the story seem to suggest that it's time for a major set-to, make him a couple of masteries better than their best combat skill, while if he's just an opportunity to let one of the characters prove his mettle, maybe he's relatively weak. Of course, this depends much more on trust between platers and GM and leans more into storytelling.

The key point is that both groups are absolutely right. For them. Whichever approach you adopt, so long and you all accept and enjoy the underlying philosophy, that's great.

The challenge, then, is to ensure that HQ can speak to both constituencies. The trouble is that as soon as one starts to nail the game down too finely, it starts to creak. Sure you can give general guidelines as to what ability ratings mean for characters -- I developed this a little from HQ in the Hero's Book and further still for Mythic Russia (I'll paste it into a subsequent message; apologies if the formatting gets chewed up).

Ultimately, though, any Narrator who needs to come up with a resistance should (a) decide if it really needs a number and if so (b) make one up. Sample resistances are fine, but in the final analysis people care more about compelling stories and fun play, so GMs ought not to worry too much about those numbers. Don't know what the right resistance is to out-stomp an intelligent bear in a cossack-dancing contest? That's OK -- no one else does. Just decide if you want it to be a hard or easy challenge. Don't know the resistance to jump on top of Baba Yaga's chicken-legged hut? Nor do we, but we want to see what you have in mind when you get up there, so we'll set something demanding but achievable. Ultimately, this is really an extension of the whole 'Yes, But...' philosophy.

In this context, I think the original HQ book got the approach broadly right: a sense of what ability numbers mean and sample resistances, beasts and NPCs to allow one to calibrate resistances. What I think is needed in hindsight is a more explicit statement about -- pompous though it is to put it in these terms -- the philosophy of the numbers, that they should not be treated the same as objective attributes. (Although there is I would agree scope for a wider range of resistances, including Running a Mile.) What people then choose to do with the numbers is then their own choice, driven by their and their players' own notions as to what makes for fun, dramatic play.

All the best

Mark