Re: Collecting the PAQ - pretty darn long

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:27:13 -0800


"alexandre lanciani" <alexan-_at_...> wrote:
> This one surely (and sadly) will become a FAQ:
> 0) Why is this game so like D&D and so unlike RQ?

And mystifyingly. I'm truly baffled (only me?) why people think it's more "like" AD&D. I flamed out on the cranky review on the RQ rules list, but the follow up discussion has become far more reasoned so if anyone wants to see it, here it is. I think it has value in regards to the above point especially.

Here is the 3rd go round: Peter wrote the review, I flamed in response, and he counter replied with very good humor, considering my, er, lack of it.
This is my following response, in toto: (darn, I *am* a wordy bastard)

"-----Original Message-----
> in books I have sitting within reach. Each game has it's own
nomenclature
> as a very basic jargonistic way of differentiating itself immediately
from
> its competitors. What's so hard to get about that? HW isn't the
first to

And it's a stupid practice. Why reinvent the wheel every time one writes
a game?
[Steve Lieb] but I think there are bigger fish to fry. I use the term GM, DM, ref, etc interchangeably. I (like most, I suspect) cut my roleplaying teeth on AD&D so it's common for me to use it's original terms (although happily, I departed that cult long before I ever routinely used the term "THACO"...ugh).
Yes, I suppose it would be simpler to say a DM is a DM is a DM. But I also see that designers would see a value in having their own jargon inasmuch as it is possible, simply to differentiate themselves creatively (and not least in terms of copyright) from their peers.

> > Relationship Ability Rating -- "Loyalty", "Hatred", etc. Whoops --
I
> > didn't realize I was reviewing Pendragon 2000. Thanks, Mr. Game
Designer
> > - -- thanks for saving me from the danger of actually ROLEPLAYING my
> > relationships.
> >
> [Steve Lieb] Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. Geez.
> It's not RQ4 alright? It may actually be DIFFERENT. Get over it.

So what--that doesn't mean that "personality traits" and "Relationship Ability" are inherently good.

[Steve Lieb] Granted. I don't like when the dice take away my ability to play my character. IMG I would say they typically would only come into play when I as a DM simply feel that the player isn't quite being what they claim. I mean, if you have only 100 words to describe the most significant aspects of your personality, and chose "loyal" to be one of those words, I as a DM would have trouble with you as a player routinely (or even once) stabbing a buddy in the back. We all have game friends who play the same character time & again - usually it's that person, clad in a Troll suit this time, or perhaps an Elf suit. In any case, it's always them. Perhaps the gentle prod of a slightly better defined personality might help them role play a little better. Again, you don't have to use such words if you don't want to. Also, I think it's important to see the value in having authentically modelled characters in the respect of habits, compulsions and preferences. Let us say for example, that you are playing a character who is (theoretically) the President of a superpower. As a player, you of course know that indulging in a little ridiculously risky sex play is at least stupid, and at the most possibly might lead to your impeachment and public humiliation. As a player, since you don't really exist in the character's world, and can't (except vicariously) enjoy what the character might see as benefit from such an action, you would be insane (and more importantly unlikely) to fool around. But you have "Lechery" as a personality trait. So, here is a mechanism for the DM to force you to do things that are possibly contradictory to intelligent behaviour for what, to your character, would be valid reasons. People do stupid things all the time - alcoholism, drug addition, etc, etc - but I've always found characters strangely empty of such human flaws. Maybe this is a way to make them more human and realistic?

> [Steve Lieb] wow. One might re-title this "disingenuousity primer
101"  

Okay. See above.

[Steve Lieb] I'm going to say here at the outset that I admire Peter's ability (which I apparently am less skilled at) to refuse to sink to trollish bait and keep this all in good humor.

> Each game has it's own nomenclature as a very basic jargonistic way
> of differentiating itself immediately from its competitors.
> What's so hard to get about that?
 

Nothing. I just think that this particular jargon sucks. And as was well
noted by Julian Lord, the televisionistic (is that a word?) quality of this particular jargon is jarring, to say the least. One minute the system appeals to the most erudite gamer, suggesting a 100-word essay with good grammar; the next minute it's pandering to us morons by using TV terms instead of traditional gaming jargon.

[Steve Lieb] I'll wholeheartedly agree that one of the things I'll refuse to do is to introduce the game in the media-focussed fashion as the rules sometimes drift to. The A-Team, indeed. I don't WANT my combat to be the empty choreographed skirmishing where nobody really gets hurt "like on TV". I want my combats like RQ - brutish, bloody and dangerous. This is where I think my house rules will end up being written. I've already got some good ways of - while staying compatible with whatever HW publishes - making the combats at least a little more 'dirty'.  

> And Hero Points *are* something you get as you accumulate experience.
   

I can't figure out what this means. Experience points are something you get as you accumulate experience. So what?

[Steve Lieb] What it appeared to me was that you were equating hero points with AD&D xp, which I don't think is a fair comparison. In AD&D you accumulate xp and when you have a certain total , you get better at everything and are suddenly harder to kill. I don't think anyone on this list would disagree that is one of the stupider mechanics in that game (and that's saying something). Hero points are used - a lot like skill checks in RQ - to advance certain skills you used in an adventure. IMG I wouldn't let someone use hero points to improve his "Fishing" skill if it had been a diplomatic adventure taking place in backrooms and ballrooms (or whatever). I just felt that the comparison was unfair - tarring a decent mechanic with the broad brush of scorn reserved for something that - in this forum, at the very least - we all think is dumb, based solely on semantic similarity.  

> All I get here is some sort of feral hatred of anything remotely
> sounding like AD&D, which is all it does.
 

Well, if that's all there is to the review why get so excited? And why shouldn't I dislike AD&D? It's a very poorly-designed system, which is why I'm amazed that HW has so many elements in common with it. After all, the previous Gloranthan roleplaying game was truly ground-breaking and cutting edge. All that's cutting-edge about Hero Wars, as far as I can tell, is the phrase "cutting-edge", which I've heard over and over.

[Steve Lieb] But here, among other places, is where we part company. I honestly don't think that HW bears that much resemblence to AD&D. Yes, it is less simulationist that RQ, so on that spectrum it vaguely is 'closer' to AD&D than RQ was. True. But it's no more "similar" to AD&D than, say, Aftermath! or Jorune.  

> [Steve Lieb] Again, feral anti-D&D ism apparently. You tell me -
> is there really such a HUGE difference between an 87% chance to
> succeed and an 88%?
 

There is if you roll an 88.

[Steve Lieb] Here is where there's a philosophical difference in what the system is trying to do. Are you simulating the swing of the player's arm, modifying the smoothness of her swing with the constriction of leather armor, the slickness of her grip, with a bonus because it's a 42 degree from vertical swing and the height of the sun and the orientation of the combatants would result in the target being blinded for .0223 seconds from reflected glare? Go ahead, and in 3 hours when you're done rolling your first exchange of blows I'll be happily completing MY adventure with a system that forgoes the detail in favor of MGF. I don't think HW is a perfect system. I think it strives for dramatic action and to sustain the "feel" of events without getting bogged down in detail. Black boxing, if you will. Some will like it, some won't. I was first drawn to RQ because I'm a wargamer, and the simulationist part attracted me. But when you've spent entire gaming sessions playing out one or two major combats, I at least saw the value in a system that played a little quicker (and was, biting my lip, willing to sacrifice some "accuracy" to do it). Am I sure I'll like it? Nope. But I'm willing to give it a try.  

> Rather than being a dry "roll 3d6" the author is juicing it will a
> little more friendly language. Is this a problem?
 

There is if the GM is constantly required to adjudicate the definitions and relationships between skills. I can see the appeal of allowing freeform fuzzy categories, but what happens if two different skills are in conflict, and the players disagree on how they interact? Or three different skills? Four? Etc.  

I suspect that the skills will soon be narrowed down to a smaller set, because otherwise published scenarios will become quite confusing.

[Steve Lieb] This has been raised in the HW digest, without really being answered IMO. I said what if a character has Tiny as a skill (to be of benefit in stealthy situations) and the player of a pissed-off Storm Bull wants to indulge in a little intra-party conflict (the best in my book as a DM) :) and claims that the Tiny trait should make that player more subject to harm from whatever damage the Storm Bull could inflict. Judgement call for the DM.
Also, someone on the list pointed out exactly what you say - if they don't define at least the magic effects a little more clearly, there will be a glaring discrepancy between what one gaming group says is the effect of the "Great Wind of Darkness" and anothers, in which case, why bother with a consistent world setting at all? This hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.  

> I don't think it's terribly complex, and it IS rather novel.
 

But "novel" does not necessarily equal "better".

[Steve Lieb] True, but I would say novel is at least entitled to a good look. Remember, at one time RQ was completely novel. I remember sitting at UW Parkside in Gencon 1982 and being introduced to this RPG called Runequest. A *LOT* of people took a pass on playing when they glanced through the rules: "Duck alchemists? How stupid!...." thus are first impressions dangerous.  

Otherwise, all roleplaying is
chaos, and any system is as good as any other. In which case, why get so
excited about something that doesn't matter?

[Steve Lieb] ouch, the moral relativism argument. Steve's Illumination just went up a point.                                    

> what's the difference if the DM says "After a week of high living,
> that wealth you got from Apple Lane for saving them is pretty much
> gone" (you didn't cement the wealth increase with a Hero Point) or
> the DM says "you get back to the inn/castle/whatever and some
> thief has pilfered your gold, leaving you poor and needing work"?
 

But the system REQUIRES (or at least encourages) the GM to do so! [Steve Lieb] In a sense, yes. In that same sense as the presidential analogy above - I personally like it that the assumption is that the characters (despite the frugality and good sense of the player, if that's not oxymoronic) behave humanly in between sessions. In the wealth analogy it is really only a matter of WHERE the burden rests. In HW it is in the character development that the character is assumed to blow excess wealth unless they make a deliberate effort to save it. In my life, that's pretty realistic. In RQ, instead of the player having to deal with it at the rules level, they have to remember "Ah, I've got a ton of cash in my pockets - how would I really act?" On the flip side, in HW if a character was described as "frugal" I might let them make a simple success to cement wealth rating increases without the spending of a hero point. Of course, I might also require them to check said trait if the party wants to throw 1327 pennies at a beggar "to keep our money even" or something high-risk or stupid. I think that's pretty reasonable, actually.

It's worth pointing out that not all GMs who play this game will necessarily be highly experienced -- in fact, if Chaosium wants to make this a success they HAVE to get new gamers involved! Why encourage bad GMing habits in novices?

[Steve Lieb] As above, I don't necessarily assume they are bad practices. I do recognize that in HW the burden on the DM will possibly be more than in RQ, where the reality of the world and rules kind of 'takes care of itself' while in HW it does sort of have to be presented differently. Not worse - as I think you are reflexively expecting - just different, and possibly a little harder.  

On a more personal note, I always used to hate it when my old D&D GM would remove character treasure by fiat. "Whoops, you must have thrown your new magic sword into the sewer ... given it to the King ... whatever. Ha ha!"  

That's just annoying. Do we want to annoy players? Will novices continue
to use a game system that annoys them?

[Steve Lieb] Yeah, but how many times did you as a player have your character do something STUPID (like throw your sword down a sewer) because your character was drunk and it seemed like an hilarious idea at the time? I don't know about you, Pete, but I've done some damn stupid things (seen in the cold light of hindsight) for what I thought were great reasons at the time. I unfortunately have a hard time acheiving the dispassion players get running characters.

To actually rant a little,
[Steve Lieb] I did, so please, be my guest :)

one of the biggest problems for Glorantha has been growing hostility to newcomers. Treat people like crap, and you know what? They won't like you! Go figure.  

It's fine to be that way if you're a cult planning to meet the mothership, but if you want to propogate a hobby or run a successful business that's not a very well-omened course.

[Steve Lieb] I'll grant you that my response wasn't very nice. But you *did* write the "cranky" review of HW, tantamount to self admission that you were casting chum on the water hoping for some stupid fellow to get worked up over it.
My behavior is not representative of Glorantha, Chaosium, Issaries, Greg Stafford, or just about anyone. Hell, I wish I could say it's not representative of ME sometimes.
I don't attempt absolution, but you were trolling.  

> HW is nothing like AD&D, except that it also uses a 20-sided for
> event resolution.
 

Er, and experience points.
[Steve Lieb] I really don't think they are anything like AD&D xp except in name.

And something a lot closer to character classes than RQ had.
[Steve Lieb] Not at all.

 And apparently limited skill sets
[Steve Lieb] As had RQ. Even in RQ not everyone could do everything. And I think they were reacting to this in the design of HW. Ever try to write a monster generator program for RQ? I did, for quite a while.  But I didn't have the time to resolve - "Am I going to calculate the "jump, run, hide, pick locks, throw rock" for every damn trollkin, or pick a representative skill set of things that are probably going to be important to trollkin and assume they're (below) average in anything else?
So what's the difference between that and HW shorthand of "trollkin, mob attack 12, hide 8, run away 16"?

And NPCs
who do not have the potential for growth that PCs have. [Steve Lieb] I don't know where you get this. NPC's can also get hero points at the DM's discretion. In fact they recommend that important NPC's do so. In the Gwandor campaign (link is on the egroups page for the hw-rules list web links) there are a ton of NPC's, allies, enemies etc that are developing beautifully and are enriched by the system of HW. Take a look - I was impressed. I gather this is a long-running playtest group.

Julian Lord
said "the new version of D&D is going to be about *85 - 95%* compatible with Hero Wars" -- I haven't seen the system yet, but that certainly is something to think about.
[Steve Lieb] I don't know where Julian gets this stat. I doubt that severely.  

I'll take a look at the system when it comes out, but at this point it doesn't look promising at all.
[Steve Lieb] Hey, I don't own stock in Issaries. I'm not GTA. But I do hope they succeed because, like all of you, I too lived through the Long Night of the 80's when RQ was moribund at best. I want to see this succeed. I hope I like the rules when I see them too. I hope people just give it a fair look and I probably reacted mostly to the cranky review because it was (in some small ways) my first impression too, that I've worked hard to overcome, and now I'm pretty optimistic actually.   

By the way, I was surprised to see so much anger from a man whose last name means "love". :)
[Steve Lieb] Yeah, probably some unresolved issues from childhood or something :)
Thanks Pete!
-Steve"

Powered by hypermail