The problem here is that there is a range of potential interpretation that all regards how "in-game" you want the ability representations to be. Consider this alternate method, just for shock effect. Each round in an extended conflict, the players write down what ability they're using. Then they roll, and reaveal the abilities used, and determine who came out on top for the round. Then the Narrator looks at the abilities, and determines just what happened to make the mechanical result sensible.
So, for instance, if I use my Crimson Death spell, and you use Horrible Grimmace to "defend", and you come out with a minor victory, then the Narrator says to me, "As you look up to launch the eldritch energies of your spell, you note the look on your enemy's face and are so taken aback by it as to forget you're in the middle of casting causing the energy to burn your wrists, and the spell to subsequently dissapate uselessly."
Now, this isn't even remotely supported by the text, nor am I advocating the use of such a method. I bring up the example, to point out, however, that some people play this way, essentially, and it works just fine for them. That is, there's very little use of "appropriateness modifiers" because in terms of the story, it's all appropriate. There is no "should" for these players in terms of what should work better against what, because the ratings for abilities are not indicative of anything in-game - they're entirely metagame, that is, for the players outside of the game. They're only there to determine what happens in-game insamuch as they indicate how important these things are to the player.
Ill use my standard illustration to show better what I mean. You can have one character who's described as a pipsqueak with a Strong 5W, and a weightlifter who has a Strong 17. The weightlifter is stronger than the pipsqueak in game. But the pipsqueak has the higher rating. This means that the pipsqueak will win more contests than his in-game strength would imply he should. But that's fine, as the ratings don't - again, for these players - have anything to do with how strong the character is in-game.
Now, why would you do that? Why would you rate a character in a way where the metagame ability didn't match the in-game description? Well, there could be all sorts of reasons, but it really dosen't matter. To a player like this, the rating is only present to satisfy his need to see resolutions come out in a certain way a certain percentage of the time.
Would this lead to odd situations for the Narrator? Yes, but the're usually situations that the Narrator has to be ready for anyhow. Even if a Strong 17 rolls against a Strong 6 (defalt), there's a 1 in 400 chance that the weaker guy will get a Complete Victory over the stronger character anyhow. So you have to be able to describe the outcome in some fashion anyhow.
To make it even more clear, some players wouldn't bother making the results of the contest a result of the metagame roll. That is, in the case of the Pipsqueak with the 5W Strong, lets say he won a battle against a Strong 17 warrior. The Narrator in this case could describe, "As the warrior squeezes you, he forgets that he has a dagger hidden in his bodkin, and he stabs himself." The effect isn't described in terms of the smaller guy being stronger (he's not), it's described in some plausible in-game way. The Strong 5W doesn't make the character stronger, it makes him win more in cases where strength would be useful - then it's up to the Narrator to describe why this happens the way it happens.
Now, again, I'm not advocating any of this, nor saying that the rules support it. And I'm not here to argue that this sort of play happens - it does, I've been a part of such play, and it's functional. But that's not at all the point.
What I'm saying is that the rules do support play close to this sort of play that I'm describing. And that, on the opposite end of the spectrum, they support play where every event is a sensible outcome of the nature of the abilities written down, as though they were direct descriptions of the in-game abilities of the characters possessing them, and only as the abilites interact. Basically, the rules are somewhat mute on the subject of just how much the in-game events must relate to the abilites in a simulative way.
Which is good and bad. What it means is that the sort of play that you're describing is completely valid. The idea of flaming the arrows would totally fly in most of the HQ games in which I've played. It also means that other styles that other people play also work just fine - that is, what you're describing could get large "appropriateness Modifiers" in some games, or be outright banned in others. This is the good part, that HQ can support so wide a range of styles. It's also the bad part, because it means that, as an indivisual playing, you have to decide what level to set this "dial" at. That is, if you don't set the dial, players will have a wide range of potential expectations, some of which may clash.
The point is that you basically have to decide for yourself before play just how "in-game" abilies are (or, from the other perspective, how metagame), and agree amongst all the players on what level is appropriate.
Often, I believe, these things are set by the first few contests in play. That is, as the Narrator and players work out the details, often a style emerges that works for everybody. I think this works fine, as long as you're aware of the potential for diverging expectations. That is, if you do these first few contests with an eye towards deciding on the style in question, then I think it tends to work out fine. If you just do the contests, then I think misunderstandings can occur, and then you have a potential problem.
>I actually quite like the idea of this, but I am worried it might
>end up getting out of hand in what skills could end up being
>compared to each other.
Depends what you mean by "out of hand". I have players use all manner of odd abilites to defend against anything. I encourage them to be creative. That's not to say that I don't use any "appropriateness modifiers", just that I use them to penalize lousy effort. If the player can't explain how it might work or why it's plausible, then I do apply the penalty. OTOH, if they come up with anything remotely cool, I accept it. I'd not only accept the Consumring Fire use against archery, I'd encourage it.
But that might be considered "out of hand" in another game. Again, you have to establish this all for yourself.
>2) The other aspect of this is the use of 'active' magic in a
>defensive role. If you consider an action to be an exchange then
>both sides could fire at each other... I shoot him with arrows vs I
>shoot him with arrows, OR I cast "Burn his body to a cinder" at him,
>I reply by casting "Stop his heart from beating"... the exchange and
>rolls would merely represent which one got their effect out first?
>Both actions are "attacking".
>
>Or am I pushing this too far?
This seems totally supported by the text. Despite it talking about one side having a goal, and the other side opposing it, it does not say anywhere that the ability used cannot be "active" nor that a good offense doesn't make a good defense (indeed the examples would say otherwise). As I've said, I view each roll as more of a clash between the two abilites used. As such, I always support the idea of two people attacking each other "simultaneously". Quite often I just narrate the winner as the one that was quicker, or more forcefull, whatever. In any case, I think it's actually important to suspension of disbelief that you have these cases occur, because after a while it gets hard to narrate yet another "inactive" defense causing an impariment to the opposition. Whereas it's a completely sensible result of two offensive abilities clashing.
So, I think you're not only not pushing too far, the fact that you're asking means that you aren't pushing far enough. And I think that's true for all styles - it violates no style to have two abilities clash simultaneously.
Mike
Powered by hypermail