Rob describes HQ as "narrativist." But if you read the rules, there's a lot more "gamism" lurking around in there than anything else. Most of the examples of play, FREX, are gamist.
If you've got the cash Rob, pick up a copy of "Dogs in the Vineyard" - if for no other reason that it's the best example of a narrativist game I've ever seen.
And it's got superb mechanics as well: Widdles all over HQ with it's special cases and arithmetic heavy augments and the ilk.
[As a side note, on reflection I'm not surprised HQ is a narrativist system with gamist overtones as RQ was a simulationist system with gamist overtones 'cause the overtones were provided by the same person. "Our Greg" doesn't half like complicated mechanics built atop simple ones!]
Cheers,
Ash
> --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "ttrotsky2"
> <TTrotsky_at_b...>
> wrote:
> > --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Rob"
> <robert_m_davis_at_h...> wrote:
> >
> > > Trotsky, are you a 'forgite'?
> >
> > I'm vaguely aware of what the Forge is, and of
> some of its
> > terminology. But I wouldn't put it stronger than
> that. From the
> little
> > I know, they rather strike me as people with a
> hammer, who see
> > everything as a nail. It's possibly quite a good
> hammer, mind you,
> > but, still...
>
> Hi Trotsky
>
> Its just I notice Mike using American Football
> phrases, like 'being
> on the same page' and Forge phrases which mean
> something different
> to what we might imagine they mean if interpereted
> in every day
> language.
>
> I have been reading some of the essays, and its good
> stuff by and
> large. There are 3 types of game agenda's (I might
> be out of date
> here, I'm only begining to immerse myself)
>
> 1. Gamism
> 2. Simulationism
> 3. Narrativism
>
> Now we may think that we recognise what these terms
> mean, and in
> some respects we would be right, but not exactly.
> And they are key
> to understanding the position.
>
> I guess if you were to produce a questionaire and
> perform a
> psychometric study like say, Honey & Mumford, you
> could profile a
> player and his preferred style of play.
>
> Its easy to imagine, and my personnal experience
> backs this up, that
> peopele of type 1 and people of type 2 would be
> least satisfied
> playing together.
>
>
> 'Forgites' have a preferred style of course, but I
> don't believe
> that they say any one style is intrinsically better
> than the other,
> just that;
>
> 1. The GAME should support one agenda as coherently
> as possible.
> Coherent is also a Forge term. Coherence is
> measured by how much a
> game is of a given agenda. For example D&D is
> strongly 1.
> Heroquest is strongly 3.
>
> Now, both can enjoy playing the other game, but they
> must be 'on the
> same page'. This term I believe (Mike will correct
> me) is from
> American Football where the team uses a 'Playbook'.
> Each player in
> American Football has an assignment, depending on
> the play. When
> they execute the play to perfection, they are said
> to be on the same
> page. IE, not mixing plays. Its a euphamism of
> course.
>
> What I think this means is that people with
> different RPG agenda's
> can enjoy the same game, but only if the game
> presents 1 agenda.
> D&D manages this very well, because it is accepted
> and supported
> explicitly in the rules that you play a very
> specific way. Any
> house rules tend to support the same agenda in D&D,
> so less conflict
> of agenda is likely IMO.
>
> With Heroquest, defined as a 'Narrativism' type game
> its more common
> for house rules to actually begin to cater for
> differing agendas.
> For example, a pure gamism narrator may start to
> introduce gamism
> elements, such as hit locations, hard limits on
> augments, etc.
> Heroquest is very far from a Gmism game so if you
> approach it with
> that agenda you can't help but be disapointed. I
> have seen this is
> sharp focus because one of my best friends just
> hates Heroquest.
> Becasue I have tried to accomodate his agenda, I can
> now see that
> all I have presented is a very inferior Gamism game.
>
>
> This is what I think Mike is getting at: Present
> Heroquest with its
> strong narrativism agenda intact. Thats when its
> strongest, and you
> could argue that it follows thats when its best.
>
> My most satisfying games have had a strong
> narrativism content, but
> by accident not design. What I intend to do is to
> introduce
> narrativism techniques in scenario design and see
> how we go.
> Heroquest is arguably the very best system to
> support such an agenda.
>
> I think the thing that narrativism has over the
> gamism and
> simulationism, is that its (almost) impossible to
> derail the game,
> becasue the game becomes player-character-centric.
> I find this
> benefit invaluable and most satisfying.
>
> Of course nobody is saying that other styles have
> their benefits too.
>
> I am not sure if I am waffling, and I am just
> starting to get into
> this, so I don't know how much sense I am making.
> Mike and others
> may correct my inaccuracies.
>
> Regards
> Rob
>
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:
> HeroQuest-rules_at_...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> HeroQuest-rules-unsubscribe_at_...
> To Complain constructively please email me at
> steve_at_....
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> HeroQuest-rules-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
Powered by hypermail