I believe the no-stats approach works out of the box in a far more elegant and no-knowledge-required way than what you as asking for. Yes words can be understood differently but who honestly cares? What reall effect will that have on anyone's enjoyment? 5 people present at the same event will describe it in 5 different ways - are any of those ways somehow more true?
I think the added translation step is *from* numbers to narration. After all nothing happens in what people call the shared imagined space until it is narrated.
Having numbers doesn't prevent a GM from adjusting them. They might prevent
the GM from understanding the stakes though. Can you honestly say that
(without using the HQ2 table) how hard a contest is going to be, given the
two opposing target numbers? 5W vs 19 ... what kind of challenge will that
be? Foomed if I know.
Btw, the idea is not to 'provide challenge' - I used to think this and clung to it like a barnicle on the bottom of a boat. Providing challenge is not a narrative/story game concern.
I think the problem here is largely because the HQ2 book is not available
and because we don't have the necessary ability to represent it properly to
you here. I am allowed to post reasonable sections of it here but I honestly
think that I would end up posting all of the relevant sections
(pass/fail/resistance etc). This actually is a good sign that the book
contains exactly what you need.
I feel unable to help you in the way I think you need but I know that it is in fact possible. I hope you will still be able to get a copy and give it some time to learn what are to some very new and difficult concepts (I include myself in there).
Tim Ellis :
Well, which is it? Straight out of the box, or no stats, because they appear
to be diametrically opposed. If you need to assign numerical reatings to
every ability before you can use it it isn't "Straight out of the box", it's
"Some assembly required".
It seems to me that there is a whole spectrum of approaches from the "Everything is relative, so printed numbers are *ALWAYS* worthless" through to the "Published Statistics are sacrosant, and must *ALWAYS* vbe adhered too". From where I'm standing, both are as extreme as each other, but for some reason HQ2 has apparently decided to support the first, and I really am at a loss to understand why.
Using numbers to rank skills is clearer and conciser than using adjectives which can be misinterpreted, or ranked differently by different people (or even by the same person on different occasions), and allows the ability to be used directly in the game without requiring an additional "translation" step. (One of the reasons I prefered RQ/BRP style systems over many others is the default assumption that the number on the sheet is the number you use, rather than requiring a GM always first adjudicate how difficult a task is being attempted).
Having numbers does not prevent a GM from adjusting them, either by just using a different value, or by introducing modifiers or augments (positive or negative) in order that the actual contest provides an "Appropriate" level of challenge (whether determined by slavish adherence to the Pass/Fail cycle, the GM's own sense of dramatic pacing, or just the desire to wrap up the current session at the end of a contest (or alternatively on a cliffhanger) at the end of the night).
Powered by hypermail