>From: "Rob" <robert_m_davis_at_...>
>And yeah, I do see it as a game, and some stuff is designed to test the
>characters, whether it be emotionally, morally, magically or physically.
Characters or players? See, this is where things get messed up. Contests are, by their very nature, challenges for characters. No question there. But are they challenges for players, too?
The player who sees contests as challenges for the players will look for ways to increase their chance of coming out of the contest with a victory. Because they feel that victory reflects on them as a player. In HQ, the only method given to them to do this seems to be to scour the sheet for augments, and to push the narrator to try to give them bonuses that might be tenuous (or, as you point out, they might petition every one just in case the narrator gives in).
There are a couple of other techniques that players can try to use in extended contests, but for simple contests, once they've begun, this is it really. As you and everyone note, this is just kinda crumby play. I mean when you and I "scour" we're looking for what's relevant about the character to the contest. We're "displaying" the character, and finding out interesting things about the character by doing so. Not so much trying to win, as in the style we're using, it's not about winning. Which is not to say that we don't enjoy out characters winning. It's just that we don't take personal pride as players at the character winning. We take pride at displaying the character interestingly. As such, you and I won't put out augments that are just there to push the narrator into giving more bonus to win. That's contrary to what we're trying to do.
This is the problem in general with having players employing both styles. As you point out, conflicting styles annoy other players. There's nothing wrong with a gamism agenda of play, as long as everyone has it. The thing is that Hero Quest doesn't give you much to crow about as a player if you win ("Yay, I rolled better than my opponent!"). Hence why gamism play of it seems so misplaced. I believe that this is an intentional part of the design. It's supposed to signal to the player that contests are not about player achievement in winning, but about player achievement in displaying the character interestingly.
Of course it's somewhat subtle, and I don't blame anyone for not automatically seeing what the game supports. But by doing things like restricting the number of augments, you're telling the player that it is a "game" again, by saying that they have to be limited, or things get out of control. This acknowledges that the motive must be to augment to death if allowed to do so. The "tactic" then becomes picking out the largest augments, even if they're not the most interesting ("Well it would be cool to get that relationship in at 17, but I have three abilities at 1W so...").
What you're running into is the standard problem of "Creative Agenda Incoherence." And you're trying to fix it by allowing both styles to co-exist together. Well, this is more than difficult. Mr. Laws tells us that it's possible, but if you read his book, you'll find that the methods that he proposes are difficult to implement in the same game, and largely amount to having several people doing a different activity all at the same time. Basically the problem persists, because while you're catering to each player individually well, each player is annoyed that the others are not doing the same activity. Why play as a group if not on the same general page?
For you it sounds like there might be no easy way out. That is, from what you've said it sounds like if you play with the rules as written, that your players ignore the signals to play other than with gamism. So if you feel that your fix really works, well I hope it works for you. But I've seen this sort of fix before, and it's an asprin taken for a stroke. That is, it merely masks the underlying problem, which is the kind of problem that, left untreated, often ends in the death of the patient.
This is why I come out against this sort of fix. It's not impossible that it'll work for some groups. But I've not only seen, but been in many groups that have disintigrated because the underlying problem wasn't addressed. In fact, it wasn't until I understood the general problem that I really enjoyed RPG gaming to it's fullest extent. Before that time I was stuck playing with people who I always accused of "bad" play. The problem was simply that we all had different agendas for play.
I found that the problem is solved not by trying to ameliorate every style of play. Again, that just leaves everyone somewhat frustrated. Instead I find and play games that, when presented without modification, propose a single clear agenda for everyone to get on board with, or reject. Hero Quest isn't the best for this, but it's far better than most. When I play HQ, players who may be of all stripes in other games tend to come around to a single vision of play.
I could just be lucky. But I think the system has something to do with it. I think that most people who play HQ with other styles are mostly bringing in baggage from other RPG play. But that's just my POV.
So I wish you well in your struggle with your mixed group. But I hope that people see that there's an alternative to trying to "fix" a game that's not broken to begin with.
Mike
Powered by hypermail