> Your ditch
> example is actually quite a good one, because it's not about the
> distance of the ditch per se, but about how much easier a task its going
> to be leap it on a horse than on foot, which, in HQ2 will basically just
> come down to a judgement call by the GM (and, while I'd probably be
> happy with that, you might not be).
Please note that contests start with framing (what you want to do), and then you describe your ability use (how you're doing it). Only then does the Narrator assign resistance.
I'll frequently reward appropriate skill use with a lower resistance, even when the tools provided by the system (specific ability bonus) don't apply. So if Hal is jumping and Trotsky is on a horse, Hal would have a harder time (higher resistance).
> That's not a fault with the system,
> because you're trying to force it to do something it's not designed for.
Exactly. IMO HQ is a great set of rules, but I'm using them to get the sorts of results one does in adventure fiction. I wouldn't try using them to model a physics experiment.
Since all the games I'd played before HQ had a simulationist bias, it took a while to internalize how to use it. To me, the fun part isn't the physics simulation per se, it's how it fits into an overall story. Yes, I could calculate my climbing speed per second, and the height of the walls of Pavis, and figure out how many rounds it takes to escape the troll. But the important thing is that the walls are an obstacle to my flight from the trolls, and so it's just as fun to oppose my Climb to the troll's Maul Attack to see if I get away before they clobber me. Perhaps more fun, since HQ has tools to assign the resistance in a way that gives peaks and valleys of suspense.
David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail