I've read the Continuum release of HQ2 and have every Gloranthan rules system before that. So, I have a couple of things that I don't like about the prior systems that HQ2 addresses. Since I'm not hip to the whole ideological debate, I was hoping that someone minght be able to tell me whether they see those things as core to the narrativist approach that they love or despise.
First, as a player, one of the things that is problematic is when the game master sets a resistance at a point that is either trivial or impossible. I play in Sandy's RQ game and, despite the fact that he has GM'd it forever and is really superb at it, he makes these kinds of mistakes. So I assume that they happen to all GMs. When he sets the resistance at a trivial level, we win easily, but then he feels the need to balance things out by watering down the goody. And that sucks because we were emotionally invested in the quest. When he sets the resistance too high, we die. And that sucks because we were emotionally invested in our characters. (I was sooooo sad when Curious George the baboon died. <sniffle> Stupid giant unkillable serpent of pure elemental water. <grumble>)
Second as a writer or narrator, one of the hardest things to figure out is what the resistance should be. Yes, this is just the flip side of he same problem. But I want to draw attention to why the flip side matters. It's impossible to figure out a resistance for each possible encounter in a publishable adventure. Instead, you have to give roughly appropriate abilities to each NPC. And that still leaves you in the lurch when the story drives a result like the entire garrison converging on your players' location. So, it seems a lot easier for the resistance to be set by the mechanic described in HQ2, where it is driven by the story so far, instead of by objective criteria.
Now here's the thing that really convinces me that HQ2 is a good thing: It seems to me that its approach would make it much easier to publish gamable materials. For example, the author of a series on wherever wouldn't need to figure out whether this culture's big darkness god is a 10w6 god vs. the 8w7 fire god. All the author has to say is that the culture's two biggest gods as a darkness god and a fire god. That's loads easier. For one thing, you don't have to rigirously play-test the numbers!
So, those of you in the know about these kinds of things: Am I off track here? Is this tied up with the whole narrativist v. simulationist debate?
Ignorantly yours,
Chris Lemens
Powered by hypermail