It made me go back and reread (yet again) even more closely all the rules and examples associated with Contests. The rules themselves are definitely not clear on the issue and if there's ever a Revised or 3rd Edition it's an area where expansion/clarification would be really valuable.
There are examples of both Simple Contests with Consequences and Extended Consequences without, so it looks like "Do what you want, it's *your* game!" really is RAW.
I also didn't do a great job in explaining my "questions" section in my previous post (I think I got distracted in the middle of the post and there are definitely a few concepts/questions missing). I've asked myself and answered most all of those questions before I ever started playing HQ, but what's new to me now is the level of stress or fear I have in "screwing up" any of those answers. My friends and I tend to focus on long-term/strong character attachment games where random/arbitrary death (imposed by the GM) just doesn't happen.
After years and years of playing things like Hero System, 7th Sea, and SotC, the idea of a "GURPS one-shot death" in a narrative-focused game just completely caught me by surprise. Since then, I've been playing around with The Pendragon Campaign and reading a lot of the original Glorantha/RQ stuff and understand a bit better both why the system can support that kind of result and also other campaign types (The Pendragon Campaign is a freakin' *awesome* Chronicle) where a character's death over the course of the campaign isn't only possible, but almost guaranteed from old age if nothing else.
I've come up with solutions and house rules for myself and my friends that pretty much have things working the way we like now, but even after months and frequent rereading of the rules, I still find my brain sometimes twisted into a pretzel when some old "simulationist" concept comes back and tries to reassert itself in the "narrative-land" of HQ.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Bo <lorgryt_at_...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 11/26/2011 9:57 AM, Aaron Stockser wrote:
> > Oh I understand completely how (in the context of HQ... or even
> > "traditional RP" gaming now) a Knowledge Roll can kill you or leave you
> > (physically or metaphorically) dying.
> >
> > I'm just talking about 20 years of "I have Egyptian Hieroglyphics at 27,
> do
> > I know what they say?" and having the player make the roll with little
> > consequence of failure... and now having a completely different mindset
> as
> > a Narrator when that question is asked:
> >
> > -Is it crucial to the story that they can translate them?
> > -Is there something interesting that can happen with Failure?
> > -Can I progress the story if the Player Fumbles a Mock Contest?
> > -Am I rolling in the open or not?
> > -Am I prepared for a Fumble result by the Character?
> >
> > I should've been asking some of those questions for a long time, but
> others
> > are unique to HQ and how it works.
> >
> I was going to say, don't you do most of these in other systems? But, I
> see you came to it already. :)
>
> It seems to me that open rolling only tells players that hidden rolls
> are important. I try to avoid that. As for most of the questions, arn't
> they endemic in playing any RPG? As the GM you always need to ask this
> of everything that happens, and be prepared to deal with it.
>
> > One thing I don't think the HQ Rules stress *nearly* enough is that a
> > Narrator should only ask for Contests at fairly crucial times, where
> > Success *and* Failure really matter, especially if you as a Narrator are
> > rolling in the open.
> >
> > In RAW, if I'm reading it correctly, *every* failed Contest has
> > Consequences, and the risk/reward is *not* balanced. A Marginal Success
> > means the Character succeeds, and that is their only benefit, but a
> > Marginal Failure still leaves a Character with a -3 Penalty (not to
> mention
> > they also lose any associated Lingering Benefits while a Success
> generally
> > doesn't "heal" a Character).
> >
> > Also in RAW, *every* relatively-even Contest (let alone difficult ones)
> > leaves a window for a Character to end up unable to act because they are
> > physically or metaphorically dying.
> >
> > There are plenty of ways around it if that's what you or your group want
> > (the system is easily-modifiable/extendable) but (for me personally) the
> > focus on Narrative/Character/Story can clash with the arbitrary (almost
> > punitive) Consequences rules.
> >
> Interestingly, I read the system as placing the rewards/consequences
> process as part of a major contest, not a simple one or even an extended
> one. Kind of like a climax reward/penalty. Obviously some contests will
> have that result (combat for instance) but not every roll. And, like
> combat, there is a "healing" precess to any effect. If you have
> intimidated a crowed in a bar on Wednseday it doesn't mean the bar's
> crowd is still affected on Saturday.
>
> Seems to me the "how does this affect the story" aspect of the game may
> be the guiding factor in deciding how much and how long some of these
> things last. And that placing the opportunity for healing in the game is
> one way of dealing with it.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail