MGF and YGMV

[Mike Holmes]

This thread follows from this one: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=150082

Peter points out that I may have read MGF incorrectly in creating my heresy #10. So I'd like to look at that more closely, and continue the discussion that Peter started.

If, indeed, MGF is, as Peter says, just an admonition to break the metaphysical rules of Glorantha, then how, in fact, is it different than Your Glorantha May Vary (YGMV)? Is it that YGMV refers to the mundane world, and MGF refers to the metaphysical? Or are they the same thing? I doubt that they'd have been that redundant if one of these could handle the overall principle. So I definitely think that they're different - people use them in different contexts, so I'm positive that nobody conflates the two in interpretation.

Are they about the physical/metaphysical split? Well, I don't think so there either, because Greg especially feels that there is no real split, from what I can tell. That is, the Gloranthan universe has a particular nature to it that informs the whole, a nature of magic.

If we look at the examples that people throw up that regard metaphysics, in fact they do say YGMV. Quite sensibly, it seems to me. I don't think this is a mistake in interpretation. I'm not saying that Peter's interpretation is wrong, in fact, it's the interpretation I use. But I think that as clear an interpretation, or clearer possibly, is the one that says that Maximum Game Fun, means ignoring the game rules.

Now, how can I support that, when the actual MGF section in the book doesn't say that you can break the game rules. Well, for one, simply the title. In saying "Game Fun" in the title, we're talking about the metagame implicitly, about the fun that the players have. So if we're changing or ignoring rules that affect the players fun, this perforce has to include the game rules. Whether or not it's stated explicitly right there.

Further, in HQ (specifically, HW was less this way), the rules are designed to support the metaphysics directly. For example, you get affinities if you are an initiate, and you get fetishes if you're an animist. That's a metaphysical property of Glorantha. But it's supported by the game system - they have different costs to purchase, they have different structures that support them mechanically, one can release a fetish spirit, and there's no parallel in theism to this, etc, etc. The game rules here actually exist to support the feel of the metaphysics of the game. For good or for ill.

So when we talk about breaking the metaphysical rules, we have to be talking about breaking the game rules, too. If you decide that a Devotee can have a fetish, that breaks at least two mechanical rules that I can think of, the one that makes a devotee erase all non-diety related abilities from their sheet, and the one that makes a concentrated user only have magic from the otherworld that they're concentrated in. Concentration being required for becoming a devotee. So, again, if we're talking changing metaphysics, we're talking about changing the game rules.

Now, that alone doesn't say anything about ignoring the rules, per se, but altering them to suit characters - which, frankly I don't have much against. It could be argued that all of the rules regarding metaphysics are actually situational. Indeed, the more we find out about the Lunars, for instance, the more we find they break this sort of rule all over. So, in fact, it would seem that it's an overall rule that you're supposed to make the game rules best fit the metaphysical reality for that character. Which is just fine, I can buy into that. I do it myself.

My real beef is now, and always has been with the idea of throwing out the game rules in play. To allow GM fiat to take over whenever the rules seem to be "in the way" of having fun. So does MGF suggest this? Well, again, not in the section in question. But consider that the attitude of ignoring the rules is supported elsewhere in the book. I don't have the book in front of me, but I know that in at least one place, it says, somthing to the effect of "Don't play the rules, play the story." I'll see if I can hunt that down.

What is that saying? It's saying that sometimes the rules and the story don't coincide. That, somehow, using the rules means that the story won't happen. Well, I completely disagree with this notion, and I'll be willing to discuss precisely why later on in the thread if people want to look at it more closely.

But my point here is that given all of these circumstances, I believe that that authors have conveyed to "traditional" readers of the book that they support this concept. The "golden rule" of RPGs is ubiquitous across gaming. So when people see text that implies that they don't have to use the rules if they don't like, I think they immediately assume that means any and all rules, including the game rules. This is why I propose my own reading which says either to ignore this text, or read it such that it means only, essentially YGMV.


Now, part the second, YGMV. I don't like it either. I understand the cultural reasons for the existance of the YGMV rule - the RQ community is very invested in the canon Glorantha, and YGMV is the designers saying outright that it's OK to play in a non-canon Glorantha, so as to stop people saying, "Well, that's not canon" in discussions about play. But what happens instead is that people say, "Well, YGMV, but it's not how I'd play it." My point is that the attitude remains, and will remain, that the canon is valuable. I don't even dispute that the canon is valuable for people invested in it; there's no doubt in my mind that it is valuable for their purposes.

I also think that it's fine to play outside of the canon. Just a matter of choice. To the extent that YGMV is saying that either way to play is fine, it's well intentioned. But again, it gets used as code for the dividing line now, and so has become emblematic of the divide, rather than creating any real harmony between the sides.

But worse than that, it becomes an "excuse" that people bandy about. This I really can't stand. Instead of genuinely arguing a point about how something works in play, for example, say the rules on how animism works, the person will now simply say, "Well it works like X, but YGMV." It's become code here for, this is what I think, but since we're all allowed to play the way we want to play, I don't have to explain why it works, or how. I don't have to engage you in honest debate on the subject, because, well, My Glorantha May Vary.

I've said this before, but frankly, RPG rules telling players that they may alter them, or that they may alter the setting is like a car dealer telling you "Hey, after you purchase it, you can put on a supercharger, or any other accessory you like!" Which is true, but not something that was in question. Even amongst the Glorantha community there were canon people, and non-canon people already, and this hasn't changed because of YGMV. Instead YGMV is used regularly as a shield to protect the ability of each side to ignore the needs of the other.

In fact, sometimes the derision behind YGMV is palpable. You'll see people say stuff that, if we look at the subtext looks like, "You're point is stupid, and ridiculous, but you can't do anything about this opinion of mine, because I acknowledge that you have the right to be stupid, because YGMV."

No, it's not the principle that's at fault, again, it's well intentioned. What I'm saying here is that I'm just hoping that individuals take stock of their own methods of debate, and do not use YGMV as a tool to be intellectually dishonest. If you can look at your use of YGMV, and see that you haven't used it this way, then this isn't aimed at you, I guess. But even then, consider not using it at all, because it really has very little value to add to any argument. And can be quite problematic.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

The example of MGF in the book goes on examples of canon defying examples, then goes into the topic of non-game side discussions that pop up during lay.  Overall, it seems to be a vague suggestion towards social contract, as opposed to necessarily advice against following or using the rules.  

On the other hand, my understanding that it was historically produced as a result of folks issues with the RQ ruleset and somewhat of an extension of the Golden Rule, though none of that is mentioned in the HQ book.  Perhaps, as we've discussed before, as HQ seems very intended for Glorantha fans, it didn't even need to be defined as the assumption was that everyone would know what "Maximum Game Fun" means in the larger context.

So I suppose if you're reading just the HQ book, it would be not much different than YGMV, but if you're looking at it historically, and taking that into account, it would be the Golden Rule.  

As far as YGMV, it seems to fulfill the same role as, "We're all here to have fun!" as a means of shutting down discussion and conflict, with regards to canon issues.  Although it seems a useful tool to prevent division amongst the fandom, it also seems a rather passive-aggressive one, and one that simply doesn't acknowledge the differences instead of looking at them and using them for growth.  It's the equivalent of the "Don't ask, don't tell" philosophy of the military, except, as you say, people can say anything they feel, then magically pop it out to nullify having to be accountable for what was just said, or leaving it open as a topic of discussion.

Ultimately, we're looking at one group's solution to serious division issues, and its a social one at that. Basically, a strange side note about the fan/player community of Glorantha that crept its way into the game books, much as the idea of eating pizza shows up in many games.

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi,

I don't have much time to post right now, but here is a brief history of Maximum Game Fun as far as I know. If someone knows better, don't hesitate to correct me.

To the best of my knowledge the term Maximum Game Fun was coined by Michael O'Brien (writer of Sun County for RunQuest, among other things). No wait -- according to MOB himself, the term was coined by Loren Miller. Hm ... nevermind.

The point is that Michael has used the term in two different ways:

1. Alternate rules for playing in Glorantha. The first sentence of these rules are: "There are no hard-and-fast rules.  Things happen, spells work, weapons hit at the discretion of the GM." See for yourself here. I do not think that these "rules" are a major inspiration for the MGF of HeroQuest.

2. An article in Questlines (a convention fund-raiser book from 1996). This article is something very different from item 1, above.

Here is a quote from that article:

There are probably lots of ways you can approach writing material for RuneQuest and Glorantha. ... I offer mine -- the Maximum Game Fun or MGF approach. This approach is easy to grasp -- all you have to do is ask yourself "now, in this situation, what is goinmg to be most fun?" -- but rather more difficult to pull off

The rest of the article gives practical examples on how to achieve MGF by messing with the setting. Most of the examples are actually about creating, or taking advantage of the setting to create, entertaining conflicts.

Rather than take everything published as writ, it's worth mucking around with things in the existing publications if you can get more MGF out of your game.

Alas I must leave now. The real world is calling out for me.

[Scripty]

Hi Mike:

What I got out of reading about MGF in the gamebook was that a group should focus on elements of the storyline that they find most interesting, most fun. To me, MGF seemed more like a guideline for Story Now than anything else. As a disclaimer, I am an avid hater of the Golden Rule. I've seen it applied judiciously in the past. But it's always struck me as a referee in a football game throwing out penalties and making calls just to make a game seem close. I may be a bit of an extremist on the topic, though.

Following are some questions that I pulled out of a really long and thoughtful post I was going to submit. I pulled out all the accompanying exposition. Primarily because it was extemporaneous. Secondarily it's because so few people read my really long posts. Mike has, generally, but others not so much. So I've spared us all a much longer chapter on MGF and YGMV. Yay me!

Another disclaimer, I agree with Mike's two major points as I understand them (no misrepresentation intended here): 1) MGF should not be used as the Golden Rule, 2) using YGMV as an excuse to not explain the whys and wherefores of particular settings or rules hacks is an abuse of YGMV. I hope I've summarized you correctly, Mike.

Here are some questions that came to me out of a mental discussion I had with myself on the topic:

---

On MGF:

Is assuming the Golden Rule from the standpoint of RPG history (as Bankuei notes) into what is written in the HQ book a fair criticism of MGF? At what point does what is being proposed as Maximum Game Fun just become a matter of interpretation?

Is MGF applicable to rules-bending or fudging? Does altering rules in-game to benefit or challenge a character fall under the Golden Rule? Does setting difficulties on the fly in play?

Is the Golden Rule defined, necessarily, by who it benefits in play? For example, if it benefits the players is it Maximum Game Fun? If it benefits the GM's pre-defined storyline, is it the Golden Rule?

Is HQ, by default, a game that sways one way or the other on this scale?

What effect would it have on HeroQuest to have had MGF removed from the text? Would the same Golden Rule assumptions be carried over into a rules-set that lacked the MGF section?

And for YGMV:

How is YGMV a good thing? (Please forgive the next two questions as they make this one seem rather rhetorical. It's not. It it's more of a thought exercise that led me to the next two questions.)

Doesn't YGMV help put a brake on one particular person or group of people setting the agenda for how the rest of the HQ community applies the rules or interprets the setting?

Doesn't YGMV empower newbies to Glorantha to gloss over having to sift through 20+ years of setting development to get to play faster? As a packaged product, not extrapolating the system from the setting, what would HeroQuest's entry-level learning curve be without YGMV?

---

So I've saved you a 4000+ word post to get at the heart of where I'm bumping my head. Next thing you know, I'll be cutting it down to one-word posts like Sunny in Series of Unfortunate Events.

And Scripty posted, "eighties," (which everybody on the board clearly understood to mean "I think we should go back to the days where GMs served explicitly as referees and moderators of a collaboratively creative experience and not de-facto storytellers") before going back to chewing on his favorite phonebook...

Scott

[NickHollingsworth]

I want to explain my assumptions about MGF and "Don't play the rules, play the story" because they come from the viewpoint of someone who is a RQ and Gloranthan veteran rather than having come to HQ via narrative-ish games.

I believe the Glorantha crowd has a strong Simulationist and/or Gamist mindset because that was the state of the hobby for most of the time RQ was being played or at least the part of the hobby that we had any contact with.
So I see them both as early statements that a more story based approach is possible, though they are not going the whole hog by (say)  Ron Edwards standards.

Commonly in our RQ days if one npc was fighting another then the group I played with at the time would have expected to roll every attack and parry of both of them until they discovered who won.
If a pc had to climb a mountain to get to something we would expect to make the climb rolls and if they were failed and that cut short the adventure so be it.
If we chosen not to do these things we would have had the lingering feeling that we had 'cheated' ourselves somehow.

MGF says 'do what will be most entertaining to everyone in your group'.
The Simulationist mindset that was in place whispered 'do the most realistic thing' or 'let the system decide what the right thing to happen is'.
MGF pointed out 'actually you can ignore consulting the dice to see what happens, choosing whatever will entertain everyone will be good enough'.
So at the time it did imply ignoring the rules.

So I assume MGF as it appears in the HQ book still intends to be read as a call to ignore the rules and pick something that will entertain the group.
But it might not read like that *if* you understand implicitly how to apply the rules strictly and transparently in order to achieve MGF.
But this is Ron Edwards revelation and his writing and similar stuff were outside the experience most RQers until fairly recently.

I have five years of bursts of revelation about the possibilities of story oriented play.
But predating that I have twenty years of heavy simulationist RQ tradition that it has to struggle against.
I expect the HQ authors have much the same background.
Most of HQ readership certainly does.

Read MGF as being written to and by a Simulationist-by-tradition non-Ron-Edwards reader and you will see that it does say 'ignore the rules and just pick whats most fun instead' and hence does intend to differ from 'YGWV'.

So

I think Mike is correct in that MGF does intend to say 'you may ignore any and all game rules to achieve MGF' as well as 'you may ignore any and all Gloranthan metaphysics and norms to achieve MGF'.

I think Mike has a valid point in heretically saying that its possible to achieve Maximum Story Fun by vigorously and openly applying the game rules.

I still like MGF and find it useful. It still underlines and summarises things like 'dont roll when npc fights npc', 'you can and should just declare that heros succeed at things that are not interesting contests', etc. [/list:u]
I dont think I could yet consistently frame contests such that all outcomes are equally entertaining and hence I would like to hang on to MGF as a crumb of comfort for the time being.

MGF has value because its a big boxed text and it reminds the reader that desipte his assumptions something is good if and only if its enjoyed by the group. So cut to the chase, hang doing things correctly, get on and just play.

You could argue that by freeing the group from having to fully understand and apply the rules in order to play it reduces the learning curve of the rule. That is to say MGF reduces the effort needed to understand all of the rules before starting in the same way that the YGWV reduces the effort needed to understand all of Glorantha before starting.

[Bankuei]

Hi Scott,

I know you mentioned that some of the questions are just thought-food, so feel free to take my responses up for discussion or leave them as you see fit :)

Doesn't YGMV help put a brake on one particular person or group of people setting the agenda for how the rest of the HQ community applies the rules or interprets the setting?

I wouldn't say that this necessarily is true.  As far as I have seen, it appears that if Greg Stafford says something- then its canon, or if it is printed, then it is canon(unless superceded by something Greg says, or future publications).  But that's pretty much the same for any setting, for any game- the writers/designers/current IP owners and the publications produce what is "official".*

The tricky part is that the Gloranthan community is not just fans, but also fans who contribute significantly to Glorantha as a setting.  This is cool in that you have all kinds of neat input from everyone, and that's a wonderful thing.  You also have folks who don't agree with their various interpretations, or whose input is valid and whose isn't.  This is where YGWV kicks in hard.

It all ways, it works very much like academic support- new ideas should fall in line with previous established(and approved) ones, usually based on "prestige", in order to receive support.  This makes a few contributions focal for credibility with new ones, and really supported ones are then made canon via publication.  It's an interesting community creation, but it definitely has its channels to be followed.

Doesn't YGMV empower newbies to Glorantha to gloss over having to sift through 20+ years of setting development to get to play faster? As a packaged product, not extrapolating the system from the setting, what would HeroQuest's entry-level learning curve be without YGMV?

I wouldn't say so, probably more useful would be advice along the lines of, "Just take what you have, and make up the rest."  YGMV had me going, "Vary from what?  What is the baseline that is being varied from?  If I play with another HQ fan, what do I tell them I am varying from?"

Then, upon research, when asking about things, I only became more confused because I had not known about the community contribution situation.  I would receive 5 different things about the same subject, and everyone would say, "Your Glorantha May Vary" and I was like, "Well, which, if any of these is canon?"  And, as Mike mentioned, some people then would attack each other's ideas, then go, "YGMV" out of the blue, and I was utterly confused as to what was going on.

I think everyone knows that they can change setting at will, that's a given.  I see YGMV as a not completely defined invitation to join in making your own interpretation and additions to Glorantha, which is cool, but also as a shield developed against a few over zealous folks who also happened to use it to defend themselves from the repercussions of their own words.  "You're a doody-head, but hey, that's my own opinion, your opinion might vary!"  is pretty much the same thing.

Chris

*And before anyone misreads that as a criticism- I think it is completely correct for a creator to be able to declare what is canon for their game, but also decide what contributions they wish to support or not support.  That's control over your creative property, and that's good.

[Scripty]

Hi Scott...

Not wanting to jump the gun here and reply too soon or too often, but I wanted to say thanks for that post, Chris. It was an exceptionally well-reasoned and well-spoken answer to those questions. Of course, a few other questions came to me when reading your reply but they were mostly about the setting creep in Gloranthaq due to such mild restraints on fans' input.

And that, of course, would be another topic entirely. So, not wanting to threadjack either, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you taking the time to give such thoughtful/thought-provoking answers.

Scott

[Mike Holmes]

Again, and just to clarify, my comments in no way criticize MGF as anyone is interpreting it here. Only as "ignore the rules." In fact, I'm not even criticizing that, just saying that's not how I play. All I'm saying is that I don't like any interpretation of the rule that says, "ignore the rules."

I'll stand by my assessment that some people interpret it that way - I've seen em do it, and call MGF as the rationale. Is it a common interpretation, or the most likely that one would get from reading the book? Got no idea here. It's just the reading I don't like.

I am completely unsurprised that all of you narrativism-loving flakes all read it the way that I find most satisfying. Show me a classic gamism player who reads it that way, and I'll be convinced that it can only be interpreted one way.

Does altering rules in-game to benefit or challenge a character fall under the Golden Rule? Does setting difficulties on the fly in play?

As I pointed out, my interpretation of the rules is that resistances can be set at any time - in fact, a very, very literal reading of the rule would have resistances selected in simple contests only ever after the PCs TN had been determined. Read the process in the book.

So, no, setting resistances on the fly is definitely not changing the rules during play. A more moderate reading says that you can pretty much get the resistance any way you like. Including preparing it before play.

Doesn't YGMV empower newbies to Glorantha to gloss over having to sift through 20+ years of setting development to get to play faster? As a packaged product, not extrapolating the system from the setting, what would HeroQuest's entry-level learning curve be without YGMV?

There's nothing in the HQ text that says you need anything else to play than the rulebook. Only a player who is exposed to other Glorantha material would even have a chance of needing YGMV to avoid that trap. Is it unavoidable that a player finds out that there's so much more Glorantha out there? Let's say for argument's sake that it is. Why would he then assume that he had to know it all to play? What other world requires this? In point of fact, Glorantha doesn't require this.

The only case in which YGMV will "help" the newbie is if he's ensnared by some Gloranthaphile who will tell him that he really needs to read up to be playing properly. I don't think that actually happens. And even if it did, the YGMV in the book wouldn't change that social dynamic. So, no, the newbie doesn't need it. In fact, by suggesting that one has to say that YGMV, one simultaneously suggests that the other POV might exist. "Why do they have to tell me this...unless there's some secret cult that I could belong to where my Glorantha does not vary!"

I always caveat against this sort of thing. Don't say, "Our game is better than D&D," because the player thinks, "Well why would they have to say this if it's true?" If it's true that it's OK that YGMV, then does it really have to be said?

Mike

[ffilz]

I see what you're saying Mike, but perhaps some new fans do need permission to not get it exactly right. My recent experience is with Tekumel (but I've been a Glorantha fan since I first found RQ I in 1978). Prof. MAR  Barker even admits that his game doesn't perfectly represent Tekumel, implying: so why should you be the least bit concerned about "getting it wrong"?

Frank

[Scripty]

As I pointed out, my interpretation of the rules is that resistances can be set at any time - in fact, a very, very literal reading of the rule would have resistances selected in simple contests only ever after the PCs TN had been determined. Read the process in the book.

So, no, setting resistances on the fly is definitely not changing the rules during play. A more moderate reading says that you can pretty much get the resistance any way you like. Including preparing it before play.

Thanks for going over some of my questions, Mike. It's always good to hear your input. I did check up in the book and there are no real restrictions on GMs setting Resistances. On the fly is pretty much the accepted mode, which is no different from most other RPGs. The question was more food for thought on the extent of the Golden Rule concept. Essentially, at what point does GM fiat (in its many facets) fall into MGF or the Golden Rule? It's similar to "role of the GM" questions I've asked before. But it's a difficult one to answer, in my experience. I certainly haven't been able to answer it.

Both your literal and moderate readings of assigning resistances are, as far as I can tell, the only sensible readings of the material.

I do have some more questions regarding the Golden Rule and its scope in terms of the GM's role in play. Again, though, that would be drifting the thread to a different topic, which I will avoid doing.

In point of fact, Glorantha doesn't require this.

The only case in which YGMV will "help" the newbie is if he's ensnared by some Gloranthaphile who will tell him that he really needs to read up to be playing properly. I don't think that actually happens. And even if it did, the YGMV in the book wouldn't change that social dynamic. So, no, the newbie doesn't need it. In fact, by suggesting that one has to say that YGMV, one simultaneously suggests that the other POV might exist. "Why do they have to tell me this...unless there's some secret cult that I could belong to where my Glorantha does not vary!"
...If it's true that it's OK that YGMV, then does it really have to be said?

Hmm... Anyone who tries to find out more about Glorantha on the internet could arguably be exposed to the influences you mention. But you're correct about YGMV being irrelevant in that situation. In my experience, those influences would exist, and likely dominate, discussions about the setting whether YGMV was an issue or not.  

To a degree, I think I agree with Bankuei that YGMV gives a "constructive" outlet for those so inclined to research the canon and expand upon it. But you also raise a really, really great question here, Mike, and one that, perhaps, shows YGMV's biggest hole.

The need to say YGMV alludes/implies/assumes that there is a Glorantha that doesn't. That's a great point. I'll have to think about that one. Maybe the whole point to YGMV is to encourage the expansion of the setting that Bankuei mentions?

I think that the history of RuneQuest, Glorantha, MGF and YGMV informs us, perhaps, of the intent but your question certainly, at least in my mind, points to a definite secondary effect of its inclusion in HeroQuest. Thanks for the discussion.

Scott

[NickHollingsworth]

MGF:

Mike: would I be right in thinking that when you are arguing for strict and open adherance to the rules you are actually taking specifically about the rules of contest resolution and that you do not see the rest of the HQ book as 'rules' in the same sort of way.

If has only just occured to me that this would be the equivalent of Ron's call to play strictly by the rules of Sorcerer, and it ties in to the use of fortune-in-the-middle. Ie

you set up and agree a contest to the satisfaction of all involved;
then you resolve the contest in the open without any fudging;
then you interpret the results of the contest to the satisfaction of all involved.[/list:u]And its only middle of the three that is relevant to 'applying the rules'.

Where this approach is used there is no need to fudge the dice rolls because you have already established that all the results lead to at least Acceptable Game Fun for all the players. HQ also uses fortune-in-the-middle. So the same 'you dont need to fudge the results of contests' approach can hold.

This approach is still in the same spirit of MGF. But you do the manipulation openly and with the group before rolling the dice rather than secretly by fudging the dice roll based your own guess of what people would find fun.

Am I close?

[Mike Holmes]

Frank, there might be some who need it. But, as Barker points out, it should be obvious. That is, even the designers write up contradictory material, or things that don't work. We're all human. Given that, it's not "Your Glorantha May Vary" it's "Your Gloranta Will Vary." I mean, as soon as you put a character down on the ground in Glorantha, you've altered the setting at tad. He wasn't there before.

I think that the book says something like this? I'm not coining this, somebody has said it before me.

Given that you neccessarily change the setting, why should you be worried about maintaining some canon? I mean, you can stick to it closely if you like, but it's always going to be imperfect. So, that being true, it's simply not something you can worry about.

Now, to the extent that people might not realize this, that they feel that they might be able to play some completely canonical game, OK, sure they need to be told. But, again I like "Your Glorantha Will Vary" better, because, again being given permission makes it sound like one needs to be given permission. When one does not.


Scott, I've gone over your general topic before with Callan. All RPGs, because of their nature require some amount of GM fiat. In fact, in some ways the presence of player fiat is the distinguising characteristic of RPGs. Without it, you can only have completly finite systems. The difference between playing the old boardgame "Dungeon" and D&D.

Consider how these areas of fiat are present in many RPGs:
- Deciding when an ability is useful in a contest, and to what extent.
- Deciding when somehting needs to be rolled for (all RPGs have the "don't roll to tie your shoes" clause, requiring fiat to perform).
- Deciding on what stuff the players encounter (what adventure to play, what NPCs come along). Entirely GM fiat in most cases. In D&D we had rules to roll for wandering monsters. :-)

HQ is no different in these things from any other RPG. It's just that the "Qualifying rules" that inform the narrator how to make these decisions are sometimes different in HQ than they are in other games. In D&D the DM decides if a monster attacks. If it does, then you go into combat. In HQ, the narrator decides if a monster attacks, and the narrator decides first what sort of contest to use, including the "automatic success" form, possibly.

So, no, using the automatic success rule printed clearly in the book to say "I don't think that he'd need to roll for this fight" is not in any way ignoring the rules. It's adhering to them as tightly as possible.

The reason I like HQ is because it allows the narrator all the flexibility he needs to ensure that things are going fine without failing to use the system as presented.

Yes, it's precisely because HQ allows more fiat in the right places that it's a better game.


Nick, does my answer to Scott answer yours as well? Acually I'd say "sorta", in that HQ has all sorts of other rules that I'm loathe to ignore as well. So, no, it's not just the resolution system I'm talking about (though that it a large part of it).

That said, one really cool thing is that the interpretation of the "rules" regarding what constitutes' a homeland or something like that it all "optional." Just suggestions. Hence my improvising keywords article. So, again, we allow narrator fiat to alter things where they make sense.


Now, I'll make an admission that may be confusing (I've avoided it until now because of this). I change the rules all the time. But I don't do it in play. That is, my view is that you should play a single set of rules all the time, not neccessarily the ones in HQ all the time. Rather, as I see it, the text gets interpreted all the time anyhow, and so my application of the "rules" as presented in the text will vary from how others play. So I don't think that there's any one way to play any set of rules. Given that this translation step occurs, just like it can't be wrong to alter Glorantha, it can't be wrong to alter the rules.

What I don't like to see is ignoring the rules in play. So, yes, it's very much informed by the Sorcerer caveat. But I apply it all over.

I'll go further, and say that I'll even change the rules between sessions as long as the players buy into the changes. Because what I'm railing against here is not rules changing, but the narrator getting to decide unilaterally to alter them whenever he pleases. Because, having been a player on the opposite side of that, it sucks. One wonders to oneself, "Why are we playing with these rules at all if he's just going to change them whenever he feels like it?"

This is what the Golden Rule does, it says, "You're the storyteller, you know what's best for everyone, if the rules aren't working for you at the moment, ignore them."

And, again, I think I'm not so far off when I say that people interperet MGF that way, too, all the time. Again, seen it happen.

Another point of evidence that I can proffer here - in the narrating the game section it says something like, "Remember, the narrator can always just add new ability ratings to a character, or take them way or change them when he feels like it." Now, the problem with this is the question of whether or not this is a rule. It asks you to "remember" that you can do this, but nowhere else in the book does it give anyone the authority to do this. Except MGF. Only if you assume that the narrator can do whatever he wants is it self-evident that he can alter abilities in this way. Now, you can take this, instead as a rule, but it's a damn odd place to have a rule, and, again stated in a damn odd way.

Now this might be my own bias - I really dislike this "rule" if it is one, because unlike all of the other rules of the game, I can't make heads or tails out of how to apply it in any way that matches any agenda of play. The only agenda I can see it matching is the "do whatever you wanna" agenda of the Golden Rule.

Again, I can cite other places where this attitude pops up. I'm still looking for it, but I know that somewhere outside of MGF it says, "Play the story, not the rules" or something very similar. The attitude being, "If these rules aren't doing it for you, then ignore them on a case by case basis." I'll find it...

Mike

[Donald]

First off the acronym isn't YGMV it's YGWV for Your Glorantha *WILL* Vary. It has a very specific meaning and relates to the fact that Greg writes about and publishes *his* Glorantha. Someone else cannot follow that strictly because it'll never be fully published. So every time a player or narrator makes something up to fill a gap or the players do something which changes the storyline their Glorantha has varied. Greg is saying that's expected and don't worry about it.

Now this may seem obvious but there is a perception that the group of people who enjoy debating details of the world are somehow part of an approved group with inside knowledge. They aren't but YGWV is Issaries attempt to counteract that perception.

MGF is a lot less clear but I don't think it's a reason to discard the rules at whim. More a case of where there is a consensus that a particular rule gets in the way of the story then discard it or produce a rationale for it not applying in this case. It is probably more to help a narrator deal with the "rules lawyer" type of player than anything else.

[Bankuei]

Hi Donald,

Now this may seem obvious but there is a perception that the group of people who enjoy debating details of the world are somehow part of an approved group with inside knowledge. They aren't but YGWV is Issaries attempt to counteract that perception.

I think the perception has a valid reason for existence.  

Issaries has developed the Gloranthan Trading Association, which offers these very specific benefits:

The links below take members to the GTA private areas. Observers cannot access these pages, but can look at the GTA File Index to see what they can gain access to if they join the GTA (or upgrade their membership).  We ask that members not distribute any of the files here, and that they not give anyone their password. All files in this section are copyrighted works, whether or not individual pages display a copyright notice. Many of the files are incomplete or unfinished works. Thank you for your cooperation.

Yes, this is a fan based community, serving the fans.  This is not a negative trait, it is simply a fact.  And, one can even applaud the level of dedication the community has put into keeping their it alive and going.  Naturally many of the fans who end up contributing to official canon publications are also members of GTA.

By no means am I, or anyone else, saying that there is a formal group of "approved priests" to lay out canon.  What I am saying is that in a very organic, loose fashion, you have a hierarchy in regards to assigning validity to contributions that occurs.  This happens for any and all social groups, so its not particularly notable other than the fact that unlike most other roleplaying game settings, Glorantha is very much built on this concept.

Newcomers, when faced with this, have a few options:

-Only accept what is currently in print as canon, and disregard the decades of previous materials
-Attempt to acquire some of those materials, relying primarily on reprints, used books, ebay, etc.
-Look to the Gloranthan community for further information where acquiring the older material is not feasible.

Due to the unique nature of Glorantha's history, many folks expect looking for info to be like looking for info for any other game setting.  "Here's canon, and here's what I made up" in two clean categories.  What  often people encounter is, "Here's what's in this book, here's what I'm calling canon(my personal interpretation), here's unofficial stuff that's made up but soon to become canon, etc., etc." without the differentiation being made as to which is which.

That said, its very little wonder that most people have a hard time trying to get a grasp on Glorantha at all and/or perceive that getting the setting is just like trying to learn Enlightenment from the "Chosen Ones".

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks, Donald, that's where I got it from. Duh. The book.

So I'm wondering where I got YGMV from?

Anyway, the intention is correct, yes, but it still gets abused.

Mike