>From: "sarahnewton111" <sarah.newton_at_...>
>
>...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
I simulaneously comiserate with you here, and, yet, don't feel your specific pain.
We play with mechanical systems like this in order to support our play. Some people feel that, in fact, any such support is actually limiting, and play completely sans any mechanics - sometimes referred to as "Freeform" play (not to be confused with the LARPs of that classification, however). Also sometimes called "Diceless" (though that often refers to Amber DRPG specifically). So on one end of the spectrum we have a situation where, in resolving action, the "Narrator" or "GM" or whatever has to be completely arbitrary.
So, by your reductio absurdum isn't so absurd.
On the other hand, no matter how mechanically tight is without it's moments of GM arbitration. In fact, in separating them from CRPGs, this is almost definitive - if you had a game where no GM arbitrariness existed, then you might as well play a CRPG (which I love, BTW, just not what I want from play with humans, personally). What that means is that every RPG can be defined, in fact, by what decisions it leaves for the GM to make.
In Hero Quest, as written (or as I interpret those writings; others have other interpretations), the game specifically says that the Narrator has to make judgment calls like whether or not a particular ability gets an Improvisational Modifier in a particular contest because it isn't quite "appropriate." The text gives examples and guidelines, but the advantage of having a Narrator here and present to do this sort of thing is that we can have an infinite number of situation and ability combinations, and the Narrator can sort it all out.
(This is, again, what TT RPGs have over CRPGs which are neccessarily limited).
Yes, HQ also does not tell you precisely what the outcome of a contest is, instead relying on the Narrator to, well, narrate something interesting. BTW, Jane's version is actually supported by the rules, it clearly says that any mechanical outcome of a contest is optional. You never have to apply one as narrator. That said, I think they're fun, and I love finding ways to apply them, so I rarely pass on a chance to do so. But they're explicitly optional.
Which, actually, makes it like most other RPGs, actually. How many RPGs have a mechanical penalty applied to the character when he fails an Oratory die roll? Very few. So, in fact, what's "exceptional" here is not that you don't have specific outcomes painted for you for most outcomes, but that, like other resolution in other games, combat is not required to be special, and have special mechanical outcomes.
If you feel that combat is somehow special, I humbly (OK, who am I kidding) suggest you take the right pill and read my rant on the subject here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=2024.0
Now, this may not convince you. It's not my point that we can't privilege combat in RPGs. Merely that it's not neccessary to do so. If, in fact, you want to privilege combat mechanically, then, by all means go ahead.
But, the problem is that HQ is, then, not designed well as it stands to help you out. The design choice of where to put the Narrator choices in HQ tend to support certain styles of play. And, to that extent, I find them extraordinarily usefull, as do others. But not all. HQ, despite some attempt to make it broadly appealing, suffers from the fact that it's not "Universal." And, indeed, no RPG actually is, even if it says it is.
What that means is that, if in fact you want to play HQ with a playstyle in which you want, say, a "fair" and level playing field with less GM arbitrariness, then you're going to have to do some creative rules interpretation or even alteration. You can choose, for example, to read that a total of 100% in penalties from "physical injuries" means that the character is dying. That'll work (though it'll still require you to determine when physical injuries occur, which is still arbitrary, or come up with some mechanical addition here that works better).
Brand Robinson has done some work with this sort of thing as has...Ashley? Or Trotsky? Can't recall. You "crunchy combat" guys, identify yourselves! :-)
Now, on the other hand, if you want to try to understand how it is that in the style of play that I and others play in where the Narrator arbitrariness that HQ leaves in place is not seen as "hand waving" but instead as a feature, I can go into that in more detail. But I won't do so until you've let me know if you're actually interested.
>I wonder how precise people are about that word "appropriate" - are
>people bookkeeping, say, a -1 Hurt applied to the Broadsword & Shield
>attack,
This is, again, left somewhat open to interpretation. The technique that I use is to list the penalty as though it was a flaw, but with the penalty rating. So, if I narrate someone getting slashed nastily in the arm that might be "Arm Gash -10%." This is useful for two reasons. First, when determining whether or not to apply the penalty, I simply use the same sort of decision-making that I use when deciding whether or not an ability can augment. Running away? No problem, no penalty. Swinging a sword with that arm? Definitely gets a penalty. Might even get a further penalty for situation in that case.
Secondly, it reminds you that the penalty is still there until it's removed either naturally through time, or with the appropriate contest to remove it. Half the fun of penalties is the subsequent efforts of players to try to remove them. "Embarrased -10%" might mean facing the person who Embarrassed you again. Or maybe somebody who has "Eases People's Minds" can help.
>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.
So put it out in the open. In fact, if you're really concerned, ask the player what he thinks should happen, and then order it so, if you agree.
See, this is one of the features of this sort of play, that the rules are not there to inflict some (arbitrary itself) physics model on the characters, but to allow for the course of drama to unfold. As such, yes, the Narrator is the advocate for negative outcomes. But only insamuch as those outcomes are good for the dramatic structure. That is, he's not trying to "win" right? As such, if you bring these conversations about this stuff out in the open, you may find that the "problem" dissapears.
>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...
I've played both ways, and I prefer the rules. In fact, when playing HQ, I stick to the rules like glue (with only two minor house rules that I can think of off the top). I roll all dice in the open, because, to me, there's never any reason to fudge. Since the rules give the narrator the ability to create good outcomes from the hard mechanical results provided in any circumstance. These rules, for me, do precisely what I need them to do in a RPG, and no more. They don't tell me that a character has died when it would be dull as dirt for that to happen. But they allow me to have a character killed whenever it would be a good idea for it to happen. Not completely arbitrarily, but only when it's mechanically made possible.
The mechanics are limiting, though perhaps not in a way you'll find useful. Depends on your style of play. If that's true, then you may have to make some alterations. On the other hand, again, if you want to know more about the style of play in which it all makes 110% sense, then we can talk about that.
Mike
Powered by hypermail