orlanthumathi wrote:
>
>
>
> I whole heartedly agree with your thoughts. I think the best way to go
> would be a lower number of points involved - not keyed to skills at
> all - but with a reintroduction of some kind of bidding process.
>
That's more or less in-line with what I was thinking.
>
>
> When I first read the rules I saw direct similarities with In A Wicked
> Age (except in that game you dont really frame the conflict as such),
> but HQ2 is not as elegent, requires cross reference (all be it simple)
> and dosn't have as definitive a mechanical effect at the end.
>
I should probably pick up IAWA. I've heard much about it, but haven't
had a chance to dabble.
>
>
> I would love an extended conflict that was about directly confronting
> character skills and conversely involved risk. But I wonder if such a
> game would still be HQ2.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
>
> I would actively avoid extended conflicts in their current form
> because they don't seem to achive what I want, which is exploration of
> the conflict, illumination of motives and a test of how important
> victory is.
>
Yes, this exactly. If the point of an extended contest is to slow the action down, explore that conflict in more detail and what is at stake, then this is part of what I feel is missing in HQ2 right now. It's just... more rolls. There doesn't seem to be any way for the player to invest in "I'm upping the stakes/This is important to me". Also, for me, the point of a conflict getting extended time is that it then gets to tell a story within the story. I know people comment how tactics aren't the point, but to some degree, the tactics of a conflict ARE the story of that conflict. Abstracted, sure (if I wanted to be wargaming, I would be) but still there.
I've thought about stealing the 4 tactical approaches of the Mouseguard resolution system in some form. Since we have the reckless and defensive maneuvers, it might be possible to make them fit. (Since they are on a "to 7" scale, it isn't even that far off in modifiers.) It may be totally unworkable, but who knows.
The other thought I've had is to allow for lingering benefits and penalties, but only within the bounds of the Extended Contest. So a move can serve a purpose to set up something later by getting you a bonus to the later roll, but only within the conflict. (i.e. I organize a strike among the workers in your iron mine in my bid to get the lucrative government weapons contract - a Minor success on that move gives me 2 points toward my 5-point win and also a +3 on future moves if they leverage taking advantage of the ongoing strike.)
LC
Powered by hypermail