Mike drew my attention to something I hadn't picked up on in the HQ rules before:
> In fact, really good technique begs for you to describe the injury
in your
> narration, and apply the penalty only to those situations in which
it would
> apply. For instance, if you describe the character getting hit in
the sword
> arm for -50%, then that penalty would make sense to apply to a
following
> contest involving swinging a sword, but not for one that, again,
involved
> running away. If he does fight, and gets a leg wound for an
additional -50%,
> then no more fighting contests for him (the total of -100% in
penalties mean
> automatic failure)... though he can probably still run away with a -50%.
I'd completely missed the fact that the injury (etc) penalties only apply to "appropriate abilities" - I'm going to have to go away and think about that, as it sounds like it's an open door to the Dreaded Arbitrariness which I'm always trying to avoid my HQ sessions falling prey to (you know, the bit where the rules seem to say that what happens is "whatever you want to happen", and you find yourself seeming suddenly to have to make it all up as you go along...). My players and I prefer a game where the rules have a genuine and impersonal presence and are the ultimate arbiter of how contests and game situations resolve (rather than that devolving on my shoulders - I just narrate :-) )
I wonder how precise people are about that word "appropriate" - are people bookkeeping, say, a -1 Hurt applied to the Broadsword & Shield attack, a -10% Impaired applied to Martial Arts Kicking, a -50% applied to Head Butt, etc, all separately? Or (as seems more manageable), are people just saying "OK, that's a physical injury, it's gonna affect jumping over pits, swimming rivers, climbing mountains, the whole shebang".
> What previous injuries can tend to do is to make a Complete Defeat more
> likely. And, yeah, if the penalties add up to -100%, then the
character is
> at their opponent's mercy. But what that means is simply that the
character
> will probably choose a different goal.
Nice point.
> There is no "combat" in Hero Quest. Go ahead, look for the section on
> "Combat." It doesn't exist, mechanically.
Agreed. I remember tearing through the rules for Hero Wars looking for it... ;-)
> So it's actually mechanically the same, and dramatically superior in
> most cases, to simply say that the alteration to the character
wasn't one
> that might lead to death.
>
> How about cutting an arm off instead? That's a Complete Defeat
result right
> there.
It's that "How about" bit I have trouble with. To me, it kind of says "How about if you just make it all up off the top of your head". The Dreaded Arbitrariness. If a PC is about to kick the bucket, I want a due sense of solemnity and rules-ordained sanctity, rather than an uncomfortable suspicion that I just made a completely arbitrary call. I don't consider that Narrativism vs. Simulationism, incidentally, any more than games like Cribbage, Go, or Noughts and Crosses are Simulationist; I just want an impersonal set of rules, rather than an arbitrary "Let's Pretend": "You're dead." "Am not." "Are too." (etc)
> After all, what is Death, but the loss of all ability to compete in the
> mortal world.
Oh, I dunno... :-D Remember old Bill Burroughs - "Who wants to be the richest guy in some cemetery...?"
> And that's key. Use "Dying" as the result of a fighting contest only
when
> it's a fun result to have. Otherwise the narrator has the duty to
create
> some other interesting result.
Yeesss.... That's the Arbitrary Bit rearing it's head for me again there...
> Which allows play
> to have a dramatic cycle to it. If you play with them using this
line of
> thought, I think you'll find that the answers to questions like
yours are
> more obvious.
I get what you're saying - but isn't the logical conclusion just to throw away the whole rules and just come up with a narrative which everyone thinks is cool? I know I'm reducing it to absurdity here, but the point does stand...
Anyway, I can feel a whole Can O'Worms seething under the surface with these questions, so I won't go on any further! Thanks to you both, Rob, Mike, for your helpful comments - I do need to go and think through that "appropriate ability" bit again!
Cheers,
Sarah
Powered by hypermail