Re: Question about play

From: Stuart Laird <bugbear_at_...>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:40:47 +1000

In the game I run, Mostly #2, sometimes #1 if the player has a particularly inspired vision of what they want to happen. My players are experienced with the systems and have a good understanding of the levels of success so they are able to match those with the description. I also have a very mature group.

How does play vary in contrast to "traditional" RPG's. IMHO HQ is pretty much a Co-operative effort of narrative, where as "traditional" RPG's are often a bit more Adversarial between GM and Players, Players often trying the "beat" the GM.

On 30/03/2010 10:47 AM, rlbeaver wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> I guess I'd like to see how it contrast/compares to "traditional" RPGs
> in actual play.
>
>