Catching up on HQ rules / matrix rules

From: Loren Miller <loren_at_wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:11:47 -0500

Way back on July 6, "Jane Williams" <janewill_at_mail.nildram.co.uk> replied to Luc Lavergne:
> > The player HQer would propose a range of mundane effects which would
> > reflect his journey in the Heroplane and put some reasons to support
> > them. In return, the GM would analyse those reasons, making them
> > strong, normal, weak or simply dismiss them, and a simple roll would
> > resolve the problem.
> "The GM would analyse those reasons" - this is where the hand-waving
> comes in. In fact, it's the same bit of hand-waving we had before.

Actually, it isn't hard to do the analysis. If the reasons agree with current Truth in this group's version of Glorantha (including the results of previous HQ) then they're strong. If they directly oppose current Truth then they're weak. If they are incredibly silly or the GM dislikes their feel then they're stupid. Strong gets +1, weak gets -1, stupid gets thrown out. Each AND gets +1, each ACTUALLY gets -1, and each player's vote gets +1. And then you have a roll-off between the possible arguments, and the winning argument becomes True. That's where the rules of the matrix game prove useful to bypass disagreement, though in my experience you usually already know which argument will win before you even throw dice, because one argument generally has a huge lead over the others.

• -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller <loren_at_wharton.upenn.edu> A priest, a rabbi, a Penn student, and an elephant walk into a bar. The bartender says, "what is this, some kind of joke?"

  ---