It's a great question, but for me begs another question: should we always play 'as a party'. The alternative is to play protagonist in a common story, whose fortunes may often weave together, but who can also pursue their own agendas. The advantage is that when you focus on an individual's agenda you can more easily allow them to determine how they will overcome obstacles. This works in HQ because it allows them to focus on the skills they said were important, the ones on their character sheet. If I have Heal Rift in Relationship 1W I probably want to take a different path to solving the problem of the Gwandor raiders than if I have hit things 12W. Party play forces us to reach compromise artificially, often in meta-game discussion, instead of pursuing our preferred approach.
If we play more as individuals then the narrator can set the resistance to be appropriate to us. So if I am using my Heal Rift in Relationship 1W, the narrator sets an appropriate resistance for the needs of the story. In this case the drive to balance the party is less, so I can have ability ratings based on my conception of the character.
However if two players have opposed approaches resolving them becomes an in-game struggle, and not some sort of meta-game discussion. Or if they have aligned goals they might want to work together. This sort of weaving, when we bring the stories together, is an important part of a shared story. I know some folks might not see the difference between that and party-play, but the key is that story drives co-operation, not meta-game concerns around splitting the party. Because of this we may need to be cautious that widely disparate abilities will lead to some characters taking a back seat when such weaving of plot lines occurs.
Picking up on LoTR. I would say that there are a number of distinct stories (this is not meant to be an LoTR discussion so Tolkien scholars forgive any misinterpretation, I am trying merely to be representative)
Frodo and Sam's story, which to me is about the power of friendship Gimli and Legolas's story, which I see as about overcoming predjudices to find friendship Aragorn story, which we might say is about becoming a king Gandalf's story, which we might say is about overcoming evil
At times those stories weave together, such as when the Fellowship travel through Moria, but at other times they are distinct. We might suggest that their abilities are equally high in the things that are narratively important to them. So Sam's Love for Frodo may well be as high as Legolas's Archery. Within their own stories these abilities are equally tested. Even when together, it is not always clear that the tyros lose out to the veterans. Consider when Frodo agrees to take the ring to Mordor. It is Frodo that moves the council toward the fellowship of the ring.
So I would say that balance is worth striving for, but also note that a tyro may have high abilities, representing innate character instead of experience, which can be just as useful, if he can choose his own path and play to his or her strengths.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail