Sure its a good clarification. You can do sim Star Wars and sim A-Team in principle. It is about fidelity to the source material.
I'm not sure this helps though because my point is less about what sim is but that some design decisions are in conflict.
My point is more if you try to write a game that is make your own stories like the original trilogy Star Wars, living day-to-day in the Star Wars universe, and leveling up to gain new kewl Jedi powers you are going to find these will probably conflict and you will get something less coherent.
> Also the pass/fail cycle isn't Narrativist per say.
The same can also be applied to stating stuff out using the HQ rules.<
Sure but this is not the heart of the issue.
Let's take a concrete example from this list. How fast can a horse run. A common HQ1 stat might be 3W. We then get the problem that I can increase my running score to 4W and so can run faster than a horse.
Now in HQ 2 two things help solve this problem.
The first is the 'credibility test' which says 'don't be daft you can't run faster than a horse'. A lot of the time that's the right answer.
The second is to note that men have been horses both over very short distances and long ones. If the story is how you trick the other guy into betting against you but then reveal conditions that favor you enough to let you win then I would set the resistance appropriately mixing how tough I felt your conditions were and the needs of narrative pacing. The contest becomes less about man beats horse and more man convinces other man into bet on man beating horse in a race. In fact I might make the bet your 'con' skill augmented by someone's run in the right circumstance.
The key point here is that the numbers didn't help us.
Powered by hypermail