I'm not saying they can't coexist, merely that simulationists using HQ2 will be having to drift away from it's design ideals (which means re-designing it for sim). Also, this isn't a sales pitch for one creative agenda or another.
But you are right HQ and RQ are not normally topics for this list. I imagine there is a bit of leeway for certain off-topic ideas at the moment because of the imminent release of HQ2; this could be because it's so important that we know how to use it for Glorantha.
You did notice my paraphrase of Robin Laws statement whilst he was at Tentacles? (referring to HQ being designed to be used for story games?)
Yes, "whatever suits your story" is not useful but from a Sim point of view but to story game people it is of vital use. It is underpinning the necessity to move away from concrete definitions and allow story to come out of play, not the other way around. I'm sorry if this is a poor explanation - it's always a struggle to get these ideas laid out clearly without spending more time than I have available.
"the story will want a different answer" means (I think) that there is a problem with the story, not the target numbers created for it. Consistency in a game world is very like (making love to a beautiful woman. NO!) consistency in TV series. I hope that is self-explanitory.
Taking story into account when writing and running a game is not the same as running a story game. As far as I understand, Glorantha has always yearned for a story game system so that people can _use that system_ to _make story_. The HQ game system is _intended_ to directly make story (that's not to claim that it can't be moulded for other use).
This is not intended to be judgemental or to harp on; it's just that when people from the two camps (sim/nar) discuss certain points it's a good idea to review certain areas of assumption.
As David and Jeff have been saying: HQ2 (or, more specifically, the Gloranthan supplement to follow) is not designed to have stats printed in it (despite that troublesome Griffin on page 110 of HQ2!) - *everything* is supposed to be relative to the heroes ability ratings. A Gloranthan feel is not obtained from the numbers but from the setting itself. Everyone's G will V and so numbers are always a really big bone of contention. I can say that in all my years of running games I have relied on and pined after numbers published by Chaosium-Issaries-.... Up until the release of HQ/W... after that, I've never been able to use any of them. I think I can say with some confidence that we will be seeing greatly fewer numbers in Gloranthan publications (although I hope we will still have indexes and contents!! :P )
Finally, the narrative approach to creating a guardian isn't meant as an alternative to the "best magical ability" as a way of explaining things. That would be like saying the narrative approach to _hero_ creation is an alternative to having only broad abilities (sneak, scan, dirty tricks). Alternative is not the word, honestly. The narrative approach is intended to give the narrator a way to come up with the thing's abilities etc without having to wing it and that fits nicely with the use of the pass/fail cycle which is so central and crucial to HQ2.
I realise I've written a lot - I try to be succinct but I suppose I'm just a waffly old git. :)
M
-----Original Message-----
From: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
donald_at_ZfHNf_6uV0d1oIXLHbqOkowU10-8R5q3dYkPz0B47nDTzcA6K0dDu0X_R5y-HAtS6Mzi1fBsQ_c9o61ZiQflBw.yahoo.invalid
Sent: 18 February 2009 01:00
To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: How powerful are City gods, Tribal
spirits, petty gods...
In message <001601c99156$bd13dba0$0b01a8c0_at_Zen> "Matthew Cole" writes:
>Val:
>Problem is that I didn't remember reading any descriptions where I
>could get a grip on how central and powerful a city god or tribal wyter
>is in a conflict.
>
>That's because the emphasis these days (in HQ) is on narrativism. At
>Tentacles Robin has been noted for saying that HQ is for story telling
>games and also words to the effect of: if you want gritty then you have
>new RQ. HQ encourages you to put the wyter/guardian in your game as a
>story device and refuses to quantify its power for that reason. It's
>the same for all story entities (except for that troubling Griffin on
>page 110 :)
I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for a debate on narrativism vs. simulation and whether HQ2 is or should be one or the other. I really don't see the two as unable to co-exist. Certainly labelling HQ as narrativist and RQ as simulationist is oversimplifying.
Personally I'm doing more story writing than role-playing in Glorantha these days. In that I use the HQ rules as a test of practicality - can I work out the contest? Are the results within the expected range or a fluke result? To do that I want a rough idea of how powerful different entities are.
Now that's a perfectly valid issue for discussion here and "whatever suits your story" isn't really a useful answer. Because in time you'll write another story involving the same or a similar entity and the story will want a different answer. Do that a few times and you damage the suspension of disbelief which makes for a good story.
>You will get an idea of what resistance to use when the guardian comes
>into a contest - because, hopefully, you will have some kind of
>write-up for your city. Did you see my post in this thread about this
>kind of thing?
I did. An alternative to "Best magical ability at X" as a way of explaining things is a good idea. But I hope there are some good examples with numbers attached. Not in an attempt to reduce the world to a set of numbers but so the results retain the feel of Glorantha.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail