Sam: I was suggesting you try it :) Just shows how poor my explanation was: it didn't even show that this is precisely one of the things we have been playtesting. D'og!
Re: Jamie's memory of the 'experiment'. I'd agree that every method (bar one) that we tried to 'control augmentation' failed badly.
The only one that has survived, to evolve into the current form described in this thread, was: 'always narrate-in the augments'. It has now become: narrate the Goal Outcome, making sure you include augments (otherwise they are not in-effect). Linked with 'augments address the Goal', this brings the focus towards the goal of narrative play: satisfying narration of the heroes' story (contrasting with (bit o' controversy) 'beating the opposition at any cost, even the story' (which I have been guilty of big-time).
I'm not one of these people who has a very negative view of the way the HQ rulebook was written but I will say one thing: it fails in showing people how to play in the way we've been discussing. It wouldn't be fair of me to leave that out-of-context; this subject is such a difficult one to grasp for most of the RPG community that there are endless blogs, forums, lists and whatnot striving to do just that.
To contrast with Jamie's suggestion that players make directorial decisions concerning scene focus etc, I think that most people will find themselves thrown out of the make-believe-zone. From my perspective, that's the narrator's job. Consider the radio narrator as a good model for what I mean.
As to the opinion about the character's investment being expressed by
augments: again I think that this is more an observational cue to be used by
the narrator. In an attempt to simulate this in-game I already apply outcome
modifiers (you know, -1, 10%, 50%) not only to the main ability but to all
augments used (when used as an augment or not; applied to the skill
(17-1=16) or the augment modifier (+2-1=+1). This method is supposed to have
the effect Jamie spoke of ("putting aspects of your character on the line")
- remember the outcome modifiers last until 'worked off'.
It never rains until it pours with me, eh? :)
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Jamie
Sent: 17 April 2008 09:02
To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Scoured augments (from HQ rules - Equipment)
Sam Elliot wrote:
If you're actually having a problem with this, can I suggest that you
(plural) agree to classify scenes/rolls?
As a group we have tried this earlier in our HQ play, we had 3 levels of roll, similar to your suggestion, a straight forward roll without augments, a roll with up to 3 augments, and an all out roll with maximum augments.
In my opinion, (Matthew may have a different memory of the experiment) it failed badly. It only served to reinforce the importance of winning individual contests. Although my original intent was to grade contests by importance of exploration, it gave the impression for the players that the situations themselves had preconceived outcomes, graded from trivial roll that is losable -> important to win but losable -> win at all costs.
It may work if the players choose how important the contest is to explore on a case by case basis, but that is only narrowly different to the player choosing how many augments to use in the first place.
My personal opinion is that choosing augments should not be directly related to increasing the chance of winning but instead should be about expressing the character's investment in the contest. Which leads to the idea that a loosing outcome should reflect that investment failing and so, in a not necessarily mathematical way, augments are about putting aspects of your character on the line.
Jamie
http://emergentstories.blogspot.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
Powered by hypermail