I think I can see a knot in your thinking here, and it is apparently founded on what conflicts are for and how they work in RPGs in general.
It would be enlightening to know how your experiences with Mouse Guard worked out, did you find the procedures of play (turn taking and very specific scene framing) any more difficult?
> It's difficult for me to clearly state what's not clicking. I guess it's more of how abstracted skill and conflict resolution is compared to games like D&D. In attempting to understand it, I wrote up below:
>
I know this can be very frustrating - I have had a number of cognitive blocks in learning HQ and they often turn out to be not what they first appear. And my initial thoughts on the problems have led me down blind alleys.
> In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as play, there's just a single resolution mechanic.
This is certainly a big difference to most games and the thing that drew me to HeroWars as it then was. A Unified conflict system is a major difference and to me was simultaneously an eye opener and a source of confusion based on my Basic RPG background. My first understanding was that all conflicts could be framed as fights. (To some extent the game text itself is still stuck in this slightly unhelpful frame of mind.)
> For instance, using a combat conflict, my interpretation of play is:
>
> H1. GM Describes Situation
> H2. Players describe what they would like the outcome to be and what
> actions (skills) they are going to use to achieve it.
> H3. GM Describes opponent's actions
> H4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> H5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto step 2
>
> If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a high enough margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".
Your perceived procedure of play seems to be a bit off and focused on developing situation but more on this later.
>As compared to D&D, it would go:
>
> D1. GM Describes Situation
> D2. GM Determines order of actions
> D3. Player/opponent describe action they are attempting
> D4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> D5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto Step 3 for
> next player/opponent
>
> It would be very rare for combat to end without at least one iteration.
This flow chart is focused on victory or defeat in an ongoing conflict, HQ isn't really designed to handle this so comparisons are going to get a little weird. Sure there is a complex extended conflict system built into HQ but the concepts are built up from the basic simple contest, and as such don't quite translate.
> My interpretation of HQ's strengths are:
>
> - There's one resolution mechanic that is not modified by another rule. While D&D has one resolution mechanic, the rules of how it's applied are modified depending on the action, for instance grapple.
>
agree
>
> - Step H2 above give players more "say" in successful results.
>
Your steps seem a bit off to me but you are on the right track, as player say is a big part of conflict in HQ.
>
> If that's it, then it just clicked as I was writing this, if not, then I'm still lost and will just have to try and find a game in the open gaming at GenCon.
Playing is certainly a good idea. I would offer to try and run through an example over MSN but as you appear to be on the opposite side of the pond to me (England) that could be tricky time wise (but not impossible if you were up for a cross time zone chat).
-- My procedure for play would be thus: GM frames scenes for the players, play remains free and unfettered by mechanics until the player wants their character to do something that the GM (or the player) thinks should be opposed. Player states how he wishes to overcome the situation GM describes the resisting factor Dice roll Player (and GM but I never liked that) decides if he wishes to sway the dice result with Hero Points Overall outcome is narrated with reference to final dice and HP, which means that the situation is now resolved (no direct iteration). Free play resumes and either further conflicts ensue or the scene closes. But further conflict must either be different or developed, the previous conflicts cannot be repeated. ---- For standard Extended Contests the only difference is that the situation is not fully resolved until a number of points are scored, so effectively iteration is used and the narration is left open ended until this. But overall its still functionally identical to a simple contest. --- But what is resolved means is often different in HQ than it would be in D&D. D&D primarily utilises Task Resolution which focuses on what the action of the character is, and models the consequence of that action in the world. Such actions are only working towards a resolution of the conflict, not seeking to resolve it overall. HQ utilises Conflict Resolution (which is poorly defined in most modern RPGs IMO) which focuses on the two opposing agents in the conflict and seeks to resolve their opposing intents in a single pass. The difference between "I hit him with my sword" and "I fight him with my sword in order to gain entry to the guarded room". --- So your hunch that the difference is partly on the players sway over the terms of the conflict is true, as this will greatly impact how the conflict itself is played out. But they also have an impact in the middle of the process by using Hero Points to sway the mechanical result. This helps them express how important victory is in this specific contest. --- I should probably pause for comment here, any thoughts or insights? Jamie
Powered by hypermail