Problem: there is a hedge in the way - its importance surely depends on the perceptions of the GM. If the GM wants/intends to make the hedge an obstacle then he has to say so from the start (or at least when first encountered). Then the players know they will have to take measures/actions to bypass it - "I use my jump magic to jump the hedge". If the GM says there is a Minotaur behind a hedge and lets it drop at that, then the players should feel free to consider it a narrative description that can be effectively ignored - "I jump the hedge and attack".
Combining skills in narrative - "I jump the hedge, run across the stream, climb the tree and attack the giant squirrel." As a GM the first point I ask myself is "Does it matter that the player wants to do this?" If it doesnt then who cares, they do it. If it does matter then there is a lot to consider, including time. In other game systems I have been playing lately they have started to deviant away from a straight 'one action, one round' system, and moved into a 'can do more but at a penalty' system. And to me this is good, it allows creative play whilst applying defined limits and penalties (that players fully and quickly understand).
So if you want to do what is clearly two actions (and the GM is worried about each of them), then both are at -3, and you make 2 skill rolls. If you make 3 actiosn then -6 to all etc etc. (teh resistance is still done normally).
IN most circumstances however I hope to make it obvious to my players what will be obstacles and skill rolls ahead of time, just so we dont waste time arguing about them, or pedantically requiring rolls where sheer randomness will stuff you up.
As a GM, one of the aspects about the HW/HQ system that I grow more and more appreciative of, is the ability to ignore the trivial and wash it away as narrative.
Powered by hypermail