>From: "ttrotsky2" <TTrotsky_at_...>
>I thought the stated problem was that some people enjoy doing this, and
>others don't. Now, I can see why you suggest that imposing a limit won't
>fix this (because it'll just frustrate those who enjoy adding on all the
>augments), but I don't see how using that rule that exists satisfies those
>players who don't want to use lots of augments, and become frustrated when
>others do so (perhaps because it destroys their suspension of disbelief).
>I'm not suggesting that there *is* a good
solution to this, mind you (though there may be), but I'm unclear as to why
'use the rule that exists' would be a batter option than 'impose a limit'
Both seem to frustrate half the players equally.
This may well be highly controversial (or not, I can't tell these days), so if it is, perhaps we should take this off this list to some other site, or personal mail. But there is a problem with RPGs, I believe, that most people don't admit exists. The problem is that instead of trying to get everyone to play the same game, RPG play often assumes that the sensible thing to do is to cater to everyone's particular whims.
Let's say you were playing Monopoly, and one of the players rolled a 10 placing them on your property, but decided instead to move their piece to GO to collect 200 dollars. This would be cheating, correct? You'd insist that the player follow the rules as written so that everyone is playing the same game. In RPGs what happens instead is that the rules often get altered to accomodate the whims of the player. If Monopoly were an RPG, the GM might in this case say, well this player points out that they haven't gotten paid recently, because they're rolling low, and so in the name of making it more realistic, we'll make a rule that says that once every 6 turns you can throw out a roll and go directly to GO, to simulate the regular payment that people would get in real life.
This doesn't happen when playing Monopoly, though note that people do alter the rules all the time. It's not an unwillingness to change the game, it's an understanding that choosing to play that particular game, that everyone will be on board with the agenda that the game sets.
Why doesn't this happen in RPGs? Why doesn't the agreement occur? Because most RPGs (and HQ is not really an exception) do not provide one clear agenda for how to play. Agreeing to play the game means an agreement generally to follow the rules, but also that the rules will be changed to accomodate whatever agendas the players bring to the game. This has become traditional largely because of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons First Edition. In which Gygax has a vision that seems to support a load of agendas all at once. But no real means for getting there.
Since then most games have had precisely the same problems that that game had. It's a "game" but one in which you tell "stories." Now, I don't want to sound overly critical, because it's an intensely complex problem that only recenly has been identified. So it's not surprising that it's been a problem for decades.
Theoretically this is an advantage, having no one agenda, because the game can then support whatever agendas everyone brings. But the problem is that this sort of activity really demands for it to be satisfactory that everyone have the same agenda. If not, then the different players with the different agendas are really participating in different activities that are interfering with each other, and not co-operating in the same endeavor.
This is the source of the vast majority of problems in RPG play. Name any problem that you're having with your play, and I'll probably be able to show you how the problem derives from the players having different agendas.
There are two general solutions to the problem of conflicting agendas. The first is to alter the rules to get out of it. This proclivity to do so is the reason why there are literally thousands of RPGs in existance. If, in fact, AD&D did what it said, we'd all still be playing it. But it doesn't, and designers are always attempting to come up with RPGs that mechanically fix the problem of their games supporting conflicting agendas. There are some really odd success stories. Ever hear of a game called SenZar? Nearly universally reviled for it's massive catering to "munchkinism" the one thing you can say about the game is that it can't be claimed to be doing anything else than hard core gamism.
What we never got was a game that was really devoid of a mix of gamism and other forms of play. The problem of which is that this always leads to the notice of the "roll-playing vs. role-playing" dichotomy (which largely misses the nature of the problem, but it an identification of a symptom). Essentially these games do not fix the problem because they do not, as Monopoly does, fix on an agenda in a way that everyone coming to the game table can agree on. So this first fix really doesn't solve the problem. This is a controversial statement for sure, but there have been no RPGs created to date that have been created that meld more than one sort of agenda together successfully. In fact, it may well be impossible. No amount of fiddling with rules can really ameliorate the problem.
What does work, the second solution, is to create a game that promotes a single agenda like Monopoly does. The odd thing is that people say that we who propose this are being narrow-minded or that we're saying that we've found "one true way" to play. But we point out that we advocate games for all agendas. AD&D 3rd Editon is actually not the worst gamism producing game - if you approach it that way it can be a lot of fun. But just as we can all enjoy Monopoly without projecting our own agendas on to it, we can enjoy RPGs with a single coherent agenda.
So what I'm saying is that, instead of getting the rules to bend to accommodate every player type, it's often a lot better strategy to try to have a rule set that promotes one particular agenda strongly such that the players all adhere to it. That is, agreement to play the rules do not only constitute an agreement to adhere to the setting conventions, and the general rules, but to the specific rules, and the agenda that they promote.
Now, the problem with Hero Quest here is that the designers are not particularly on board with this whole theory. Rather, they have decided to do what all other designers do and sit on the fence and tell you to modify the game to suit your needs. And to that extent, it's actually designed with less than a perfect single vision on the agenda that it promotes. This is intentional. But the reason that I like Hero Quest is that with only a little agressive reading (see my "Not Heresies" essay), and very few alterations to the rules, there is a very powerfully coherent play agenda that you can discover in the rules.
So what I'm proposing is that you really don't have to alter the HQ rules so much, instead present them with a coherent agenda, and get all your players to play on the same sheet. I can't begin to tell you how play improves when you do this. I spent 1978 to 2001 playing RPGs not understanding this. And for the most part play worked; it was just that I always had a problem with certain players who were playing with agendas other than mine. Once I learned to get all the players on the same sheet before playing, I found that I enjoyed everyone's play a whole lot more.
This can be difficult to do, I admit. The reason for the difficulty comes largely from the traditions that have grown in RPG play, however. In fact, the only reason any of this theory is controvesial in the least is that people have put a ton of effort into making RPGs work despite the problem of conflicting agendas. And to the extent that they've managed to overcome the problem, they deserve a lot of credit, too. It's a huge hill to climb. But this makes people very confident that the fixes that they've come up with are superior. In fact it's been likened to religion in that people get so invested that this explains the flaminess that accompanies many discussions of this subject, and the general resistance to the idea that there might be a better way.
Rather the response is usually something like, "I've made it work with multiple player types, why should I try to force players to play one way." And players do expect to be allowed to play their way, too. In fact there are whole sets of documented dysfunctional player and GM behaviors that all deal with trying to force players to play a particular way, or avoiding being forced (such as Abused Player Syndrome "Turtling.")
But what I'm proposing is carrot rather than stick. That is, with a set of rules that supports a single agenda, you can often give the player a vision of how to play that's attractive enough for them to "come over" (assuming they're not already on board). You don't do this, however, by modifying the rules to accomodate their agenda. You do it by presenting the one clear vision of how to play that will be entertaining to all.
Because here's the dirty secret that nobody wants to admit. All agendas are potentially fun. Most players and GMs, having had to struggle to get their favorite way to play to occur cling to it for dear life, assuming that if they play another way that it'll suck. But you know what? Those focused gamist D&D players haven't been deluding themselves all these years that they're having fun. They're having fun. Because that form of D&D is like Monopoly, and everyone is on the same sheet of music in most of those games. This is why D&D is still more than half of all RPG play. It largely solves the conflicting agenda problem by using the agenda that we all know from games like Monopoly. Your character is just a pawn in a game, manipulated so that the player can show off how good they are at the tactics of the game. Everybody can grok that.
Other agendas are more difficult (because, really, they're not "games"). What happens, again, is that you usually get a mix, and that's where the problems all come in. Different players latch on to different messages the rules are sending, and you get a group trying to participate in two or more lesuire activities at once. And, man, how each group annoys the other. Usually.
So, how does not changing the augmenting rules fit into all of this? By not having limits on augmenting, you make that rule part of a larger overall agenda that says to the players, "Hey, we're not going to restict you from trying to win, because the game is not about winning." As soon as you put a limit on augments, you tell players that they should be probing such limits, looking for how to win.
It's turning the other cheek. The player says, "Take that!" and you say, "OK." Soon they learn that it's not what play is about. Now will this work with every player? No, not by a longshot. Especially not with players who are used to RPGs being about winning to some extent (and I use "winning" as code for stepping on up to personal tactical player challenges in play).
So I understand the unwillingness that some people have to try to change their players' prefered way to play for a particular game. But all I can say is that once you start doing it, and using a system that supports you, you'll find that it's really not all that hard. Not a perfectly easy road (I've been having some interesting bumps lately myself), but a whole lot easier than trying to accommodate conflicting agendas.
At least that's my experience. I'm not even saying that I think that everyone should follow me down this path. If your game is going fine, I wouldn't even worry about it. But I think that it's a method that's more than worthy of people's consideration, and I continue to proffer it as an option whenever it seems reasonable to do so.
Sorry if this overanswers the question. But it's something that I care a lot about (see, I'm no different from all the other people who are devoted to their favorite methods). Again, this probably is getting OT here, and if people want to discuss the theory generally and less as it pertains to Hero Quest, contact me off-list, and we can agree on a more appropriate place to discuss it.
Mike
Powered by hypermail