but I re-arranged portions of what he wrote, to get points in the order that I wanted to address them.
> listen to me - I was in just your position some time ago. best advice I can
> give is: try it out, read about it, talk about it but do try it without
> falling back into old ways.
I suspect some of this fuss will die down once we CAN try it out. It is pretty natural for people to be nervous while waiting for a change that is just over the horizon--especially a change in something they like. And saying "don't worry, just trust the experts" probably doesn't help much in this case, as most HQ fans have been around gaming for a lot of years and have mostly seen some pretty horrible games, and have been around life long enough to be skeptical of anyone who says "Just trust me."
In my case, it is not that I doubt your sincerity or Robin's skills, but rather that I don't much trust any un-supported statement of "Just trust me." So until the rules are actually available to the mass market, I'll much prefer to be shown, not told. If you want to convince me it works, give some examples of where it has worked in situations where it may not be apparent that it would work well.
> as far as comparing adjectives and adverbs goes - there has never been an
> empirical method that I know of (I'm sure someone would correct me there) -
> why worry about it? - go with the general concensus, go with your gut
> feeling, go with story logic, test things for credibility. this is
> narrativism dude. relax into it.
I think the point was rather that since there is no objective method of comparing adjectives, while there is a very simple objective method of comparing numbers, numbers might have value.
Personally, I'd guess that for something like a scenario I would not care too much about numbers, except for that base resistance level. If you wrote a scenario about Heortling heroes going to intercept the Lunar Icebreaker cult up on the Glacier and said that the base difficulty is 10W, I'd get that my starting heroes should not be able to succeed at it.
On the other hand, for general background material, which I would possibly use in stories of my own construction, something a bit clearer than adjectives may well be useful. Now that clarity could come from narration; you can indeed make reasonably clear how fearsome the crimson bat is with a few well crafted sentences. But they will need to be well crafted, and will probably need to be at least a few sentences, perhaps more. Which strikes me as both more difficult to craft and more word-count-consuming than numbers. If the decision is to provide clear narration to show ability levels, I'll not whine about that--but I may whine at the amount/cost/schedule of support material, if that slows it down.
And yes, in the past I've been bit fairly badly by people not using the same word in the same way. So I'll be very disappointed if I see "A squad of veteran Lunar light infantry."
They could be "A squad of the veteran Third Blood-Claw Formation. They have spent five years fighting the Rebels around the EarthShaker temple, where their ability to manoeuvre rapidly over rough ground and even run up or down near vertical slopes cemented their dangerous reputation. They match up well with Heortling weaponthanes, and are not impressed much by magic, even the landslides and sinkholes of the Maran Gor priests and storms and lightning of Wind Lords."
Or they could be "A squad of the Veteran Third Blood-Claw Formation. They fought well against Kallyr's rebellion, but have been on garisson duty in Furthest since then. They've become adept at shaking down merchants and bullying locals who don't dare fight back. They are proud of their reputation for influencing the policies of the provincial administration. They are well equipped and well drilled, but most are close to mustering out and are keen to avoid any real danger."
Both are squads of veteran light infantry, but are otherwise massively different. As narrator of course I'll change as I see fit anyway :) But having a clear and solid starting point helps.
I could understand that with the story dependent difficulty one might not want to give details, saying they depend on the story. But in that case there is another really big question: what value do I get from buying this product? I don't have a shortage of ideas, so why would I buy someone else's ideas if they don't offer much beyond vague ideas? I feel is that you pretty much have to provide detail to make the material interesting and worth buying.
> no it's not a sham. it's all about the names of the abilities narrated in.
> the whole idea of a narrative game is to narrate: I narrate the scene
> (frame), players (and/or I) narrate their heroes' part in it. etc etc. same
> as I said before. you only look at numbers for a brief second and don't need
> to think about them at all.
Two comments here:
In my specific case I've done a lot of playing over the years, but very little narrating, and that with mixed success. I'd like to wean my son and his friends off their growing fascination with D&D if I can, and am hoping that HQ2 could be the tool for that. But I'll need to be able to give them something very well done, so I'll be looking not for esoteric Gloranthan background, but for things that help me create exciting, edge of your seat, adventures.
To me that will be the real test of the system. Not can a gifted narrator make a good game from it, because a gifted narrator can make a good game out of pretty much anything. Rather, can a fairly average narrator make a better game from it than from something more prescriptive.
"Just be a narrator" isn't going to be enough.
Powered by hypermail