> I'm having trouble visualizing how HQ actually works during a gaming session. I recognize it's classified as a "narrative" style game, and I understand the rules (mostly.) The Actual Play sessions I've read did not clear it up for me. Is the game play more like
>
> "GM describes the scene, there's negotiation between the GM and players, roll dice, players describe what happens if success, GM describes what happens if failure? Move on to the next important scene. "
>
> Or
>
> "GM describes the scene, assumes the persona of the NPC, monster, etc. Players assume the persona of their characters. Interact until a task/conflict resolution is required. Negotiation between GM and players, roll dice, GM describes results. Move on to the next important scene."
>
> or something else entirely?
In our games it's kind of #2, but not so hard and fast. The negotiation happens in describing results, often. (And, these don't seem all that different really.)
> I guess I'd like to see how it contrast/compares to "traditional" RPGs in actual play.
I never saw it as all that different in terms of play.
You don't get "I hit him in the (rolls) 19 -- the head" results. But it's an RPG -- you use dice to resolve what happens when there's doubt (and it's dramatically interesting).
The difference is more in the approach -- think of tasks as dramatic moments, rather than physics simulations.
David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail