Bryan wrote:
> Ultimately nothing will substitute for having material in our hands,
but in the meantime trying to pull as much feel for this as I can.
Yeah. Really do want this, as a lot of this is hand-waving at this point.
>I suspect some of this fuss will die down once we CAN try it out.
Hear hear.
>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."
Hear hear.
>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.
Hear hear.
(hmm... I am sensing a theme)
>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.
*nod*
And I think the idea behind the HQ is that in modeling objective
comparisons to numbers is so difficult as to always warp a single scale,
and so the flexibility of comparing adjectives is better.
>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.
See, I wouldn't see why a scenario like that would need a benchmark. For instance, if you were playing a game where all the 10W scores you had involved relationships with the clan ring, then that 10W is kind of misleading, right?
> 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.
The Crimson Bat has a 10W4 scream. ("Oh cool! We can take that easy! It's only as tough as 5 tribal champions!") I just don't see these numbers as a universal scale.
>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."
mm.. I'm not sure how I feel about that. For NPC grunts, that tells me they are trained warriors, and should be tough to beat in a fight for anyone who I wouldn't think can destroy a squad of veteran light infantry with ease. Obviously, this would tell me nothing about how they fight or what magic they have.
> 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."
Better for some games.
>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."
Better for others. (Both fun, btw.)
>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.
Agreed.
>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.
I do think this is an important point. Other than background info sourcebooks, it does seem the whole "all the math and game balance is done for you in advance" part of buying an adventure is gone in this system. Good for many GMs, but probably not good for Glorantha/HQ2 money-making. I would think a well-crafted adventure might still be interesting, but it would be vastly less "necessary" a buy, in terms of "I need stats for this monster/NPC" kind of thing.
>1) Surely it is the players who narrate their part in the scene? You
let them know if they succeed or not, with that brief glance at the
numbers, then probably have to give some narration of the result, but
the >bulk of narrating what their character does should be the players
joy and responsibility. So they need at least enough information to be
able to do that well.
I'm not sure how an "objective scale" affects this.
>2) Please remember that not everyone who will be narrating is
experienced at narrating--unless they choose to put a disclaimer in the
game suggesting that it is not for novices. So "You just do it!" is less
than >re-assuring.
Agreed.
>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.
For me as well. Since the odds of me using it for Glorantha are quite small, it will be how it handles all kinds of other genres that matter. This gets back to my question before about the actual mechanics of how a conflict is resolved is vastly more important to me than this idea of an "objective scale". I don't think an "objective scale" adds anything, nor do NPC numbers. The question is, when you have a confrontation, does the resolution system make it exciting and dramatic, adding to the game? If it doesn't. then the system isn't being very helpful, IMO.
>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.
Agreed.
Powered by hypermail