Seconded, that's excellent advice. Basically this is another form of "Yes, but..." Never shut the action down. Failure should never mean that there's nothing new to do, failure should always mean that there's more to do - it's just worse stuff than before. So this applies not only to research, but to that roll to open the magic door on the dungeon. I mean, hell if I'm going to let a bad roll keep my players from all the fun inside. Instead, a bad roll means that we took so long that the octopus-ish thing in the water comes to life. Yes, Gandalf missed his die roll at opening the Gates of Moria, and the result was the encounter with the Watcher.
I think the biggest mistake people make with this is that they'll assume that a failure in interpersonal conflict means that they didn't get the information they need from somebody. This is almost always a mistake for several reasons. For one, it often means a stymied and frustrated player. For another you miss an opportunity for the PC to get insulted or something fun. Smacktar the Mighty doesn't say no, he says, defeat me in a wrestling match and I'll tell you. Then when he's smooshed your character good in front of everybody, then he'll ask for the character to ask his friend for something for his foot fungus. This keeps going on and on until the player succeeds, or discovers a different tac to take.
The neat thing about HQ is that it allows you to do this so well by not dictating the precise nature of the results of of a contest. In other systems, failure means death, lack of info, all sorts of plot destroying results. With HQ, you're free to complicate instead of fail a character's persuits whenever apporpriate.
Mike
Powered by hypermail