[HeroQuest 2] System and Story Tug of War
Callan S.:
Quote
And if I do increase the difficulty, is it because of incontrovertible fictional truths, or am I trying to steer the game towards an outcome I want?
I think the exceptions make you uncomfortable because the above two things are actually the same thing. It's funny how when we dream at night we'll say "Well, it was just my own mind making it up" but come roleplay it's an "incontravertable fictional truth" as if ones mind isn't heading towards some outcome and somehow it's something outside of ones mind that just has to be that way.
Maybe you enjoyed the way a system result that goes against how you imagine things actually challenges and stimulates your imagination. Of course now your finding that the system can't go against you/put up any amount of resistance against you - your procedurally empowered to brush it aside without any effort at all (not even any currency cost - it's a freebie brush aside).
Do you think you maybe enjoyed that mechanical resistance put up against your imagination - but vetoing its use and the suddenly clarity about how much of a free veto it is suddenly popped that feeling, as it's clear now you can always easily overcome the rule structure when you try even the faintest bit (by vetoing)? Adversity is the mother of invention, but adversity just got veto'ed?
Eero Tuovinen:
Neil's right about the text, I understood it the same way - the primary method for the GM is to be the masterful auteur of his excellent story and just throw out arbitrary numbers that support his vision of where the story is to go. The other methodology is basically intended to be used when you actually want some rules support to prop up your viking helmet.
This is, of course, a pretty shitty sentiment if you come into it from a certain direction. Most people I've heard of who play the system try their best to use the suggested methodology rather than being arbitrary.
Also, Callan: we get it, you don't believe in shared imagined space and player ability to communicate and agree upon it genuinely. All player evaluations of game fiction are arbitrary opinions with no empirical backing of any sort, and for this reason all real game design concerns itself with player rights instead of referencing the state of the fiction, which does not exist. This is just my opinion, but I'd appreciate it if we limited the discussion of this (relatively useful) viewpoint to some subset of threads on the forum instead of bringing it into all discussions, as it is a pretty fringe viewpoint. I would expect that the fiction-denying viewpoint would flourish better if it was spread with pull strategy, such as by writing essays or actual play reports, rather than pushing it into discussions that clearly assume that the fiction may actually be known at the table. It's like, we'll never have a chance to talk about second-order concerns if we always get stuck on trying to decide whether fiction can be known and evaluated at all.
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Bret Gillan on December 15, 2011, 07:40:24 AM
But I still feel the stated exceptions to the narrative rhythm rule, unclearly defined, make me feel a bit uncomfortable utilizing that exception.
How do you, or how would you, use this exception in running the game?
How about this: I want to make the setting real, effective, the locus of drama, etc.
That means details of the setting, esp. the religious powers and mythical forces that are the components of Glorantha, should be stable points of reference for challenging players, responding to player challenges, etc.
And the community-centric nature of the setting would be bolstered by sticking to the the Community Resources rules. These require the creation of a "hyper character" with certain abilities that face consistent challenges and which grows or shrinks or changes based on player character actions. These, note, do not involve the dramatic rhythm used to set resistances elsewhere.
So: when dealing with the Community, stick to the numbers. That means as players improve their abilities, their chances of influencing the community increase, which would give some purpose to the advancement mechanics. When dealing with Otherworld entities (spirits, daimons, gods, whatever) use the rating scale from previous editions or set up a similar. That way the players can set goals, create fictional positioning, manipulate game currency, with some consistency.
The heroquest journeys into the Otherworld are the biggest way protagonists alter their setting. So once a heroquest is established, keep the resistances the same. Improving characters take on bigger challenges and bring about more extensive changes to the world. The surprises during heroquesting come from myth hackers or other opponents.
What to do with magic though? What happens when a mundane being flings a powerful spell, or releases a spirit. If NPCs are invoking mytho-religious power and such power has been lifted out of the dramatic rhythm, then it should come at the players with the same heft as magical beings. So magical keywords, if the players are opposing them or suffering pressure from NPC magic, should be set with reference to the scale of magical power and kept consistent.
Where does that leave dramatic rhythm? It could come in when the GM is filling in connecting details between the dramatic situations sought out and brought about by PCs. Improvised NPCs to flesh out the mundane world or to provide reactions to the PCs actions would be another place.
These are options running through my mind as I try to set up a Glorantha game.
Erik Weissengruber:
Reviewing the posts and other Heroquest discussions, I can't really justify the narrative rhythm approach for a situation where I want setting to matter.
That means keeping HQ 3 with its various scales of conflict resolution (possibly tied to a Burning Wheel-like rationing of scene types available), the simplified extended contest rules, player options for stake setting and risk taking, the community support rules.
It means returning to Hero Wars for the scale of supernatural beings (Double digits for very weak ones, 10 masteries for the most remote, primal forces), mundane NPCS (1 mastery for an expert, 2 masteries for a leader,3 masteries for a hero, 4 for a superhero.
Consistent difficulty numbers for Otherworld beings in the mortal world. At most the dramatic rhythm could be used as a procedure for assigning difficulty numbers to new entities as they are improvised ("Oh yeah, everyone knows that the Dribble Stream is very easy to cross, give it a 17") but if difficulties have been prepped beforehand, with reference to the scales above and to prior decisions about setting, the GM is to honor those.
What to do with the currency? Every Hero Point spent on some ability during a contest adds 1 to its rating. What to do about the banking up of currency between sessions? I have seen FATE points and the Chips in Deadlands used to do serious turtle-ing where the player hoads chips to ward off any challenge to the PC. Hows about this: 3 Hero Points are handed out per session. Hero Points spent during challenges improve the ability by one. 2 HP max may be banked at the end of a session. As soon as a character improves an ability by a mastery, the bank is increased by one. Initiation, Devotion, Rune Lord/Rune Priest advancements also expand the bank by 1.
I am trying to do some informed drifting here: I played a lot of Hero Wars and was involved with the playtest for HeroQuest 3. The changes suggested above are for my upcoming game.
Sorry to threadjack. But I won't really have AP reports until January and Bret's posts have got me thinking.
Eero Tuovinen:
My experience with turtling is that insofar as it's of a sort that's curable by mechanical measures, then it's a better idea to simply hit harder rather than discourage it mechanically. If a player has the luxury of saving up Hero Points and using them to succeed in situations, then maybe the GM should be punching harder. Of course, the player has the option of avoiding going into challenging situations, but that's an option they have regardless of Hero Points: the real turtle is a problem not because his character is strong, but because he refuses to even test the character.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page