The whole premise seems very odd to me. That is, you seem to be arguing that HQ doesn't support storytelling because it's not balanced and doesn't simulate certain things the way that you're used to. That the system, because it seems to lend itself to being more powerful one way or another doesn't support storytelling, because players won't make characters that fit to the setting correctly (according to your understanding). Or that there are certain results from contests that the system doesn't provide.
Well, first, the whole term storytelling is a problematic one - what
precisely do you mean by it? It seems to me that you're claim must be that
"storytelling" is not "roll-playing." Please correct me if it means
something else. If that's your point, then, in fact, balance simply isn't an
issue. Despite what I've said about how common magic is made "small" by the
rules, it doesn't have to be. It's simply a fallacy that it's a prerequisite
of a system that it be balanced in order to avoid gamism. In fact, to the
extent that a system seems to be trying to be balanced, it supports gamism.
Because it informs the players that power balance is important.
I know that there are probably some players out there who previously played
D&D who play HQ like it's just another version of D&D. But there's little
the rules can do to change that attitude. Sans that attitude, the rules do
precisely and very powerfully what they were designed to do. Which I think
fits most definitions of "storytelling." If they bring expectations that,
for instance, HQ is all about creating the most powerful character, then
yes, they're going to have trouble. I won't for a moment defend HQ as being
so balanced as to make this go away. It doesn't attempt it, nor should it do
so. No system, no matter how balanced can make a player play
"realistically." It's a fallacy to hope that the system can be made that
will promote a player playing a character plausibly by being balanced to do
so.
In fact, rather the opposite occurs. Any pretense to balance causes players to look for loophopes, informing them that, indeed, the game is about creating powerful characters. "AHA! Look! I can twist the rules like XYZ, and so have the most powerful character!" By not having such balance, by making "abuse" of this sort easy to do, you inform the player that this is not what the game is about. No challenge to making an "unbalanced" character? Then why try? Why not do what the game actually promotes, and make a character who seems interesting to play from the point of view of development internally and as regards the world he encounters?
Really want to get players on board with this? Tell them that they can rate their characters at whatever level of ability they want. Suddenly it clicks that the game isn't about making powerful characters, but ones that make sense and are thematically interesting. If it doesn't click with them, then no rules system can "fix" the assumptions of the players in question. Try talking to them.
Second, I think that storytelling that's not gamism can be broken down into at least two types. And the sort you seem to be promoting, the one in which you can end up with two characters injured in the same contest, is simply not quite what I read as "Storytelling." I read it as being about using the rules of drama. In which, mechanically, there simply is no requirement for the result you're asking for. You'd agree that you can narrate the effects of wounding on both parties, yet you still require that both sides be potentially mechanically altered by it?
In any case, with adept use of the HQ rules you can get both parties wounded. Worst case scenario (and I don't even like this rule), the narrator is allowed to assign penalties and bonuses at whim. So go ahead and put a wound on where you think it's appropriate. Doesn't seem right to you, either? Then you're simply agreeing that the rules work as written, and that it's not neccessary to use narrator fiat to solve such a problem.
I'm very much not saying that the HQ rules simply "get out of the way" by being simple and fast, either. I like a lot of what you said, Luke, but I have to take brundage with this notion. What you're missing is that HQ is helping things along in play; sometimes subtly, but always, IME, effectively.
How does it do this? Well, first, the keywords, instead of being merely about "how powerful my character is" are about why the character is as powerful as he is, and via what agency. This is unique in RPGs, as far as I can tell (and you know that I've looked). Through keywords (again, note, working by example), the character is nailed down firmly to the setting in a way that forces him to be played as a "real person." Everyone has a family - or if not, the lack is interesting in it's disempowerment. Everyone has people that they know - nay, have relationships with - from being in their occupation. To get magic you have to be in tune with some supernatural force that informs the character's morals. Etc.
HQ is the first game that I've seen in which the term "murder" can have a mechanical ramification. Mechanical. Murder somebody, and the narrator may well penalize you in your relationships (perhaps as the result of, say, a murder trial contest). Which makes a big difference in HQ.
So unlike every other RPG that I've ever seen where killing folks is just par for the course, HQ is the only game that I've ever seen that automatically, without every saying something explicit like alignment rules do, informs the player that they have to behave like rational human beings or expect the consequences that you would expect normally. You don't even have to use the mechanical ramifications of murder for this to happen. The player, seeing the relationship sitting there on their character sheet just understands this.
Want them to play to character? Few games have ever incentivized this (many try to penalize playing against type which just doesn't work) like HQ does with personality traits. Not only do players play characters who seem realistic in terms of the forces that motivate them, they have personality too. And this comes out in conflicts (instead of being masked by them)!
What I'm saying is that the "problems" you cite have never, ever, been problems in the games of HQ that I've played. And I've played with quite a varying populace of players, too, not just ones who might have a prediliction to play the way I like. I've actually seen the "light" go on for former D&D players and such. That, "Ah, I get it," moment where the rules, not me, show them the "storytelling" way to play.
So, in conclusion, not only are the problems that you cite not at all problematic to this sort of play, HQ is, in my opinion, one of the best rules systems created (in some ways *the* best) at supporting this specific sort of play. Not by avoiding the rules, but by ruthlessly applying them in all cases. Rarely have I seen games, out of the more than 100 RPGs that I've played, and more than a thousand that I've read, that hit such a goal so well.
Now, some of these things may still seem problematic to you. All I can say is to relax and try to play and not worry about it. I think that you may find that it's not nearly as problematic as you seem to think it is for the style of play that you want to see. That, or perhaps you mean something really different from me by Storytelling.
Mike
Powered by hypermail