I see nothing in the rules to suggest narration passes to the player after a
successful roll, so option one seems to be a departure from the rules.

Option two doesn't quite work for me either though. HQ uses a "fortune in the
middle" system for conflict resolution. So things are not decided by the dice
roll but afterwards. For HQ this means that once the conflict has been framed
such that everyone knows WHAT is being decided the dice are rolled and then the
player gets to decide if the level of victory is acceptable or if he wants to
sway it in his favour with hero points, only once this has been resolved does
the GM then narrate the consequences.

Group discussion over framing of the conflict or the final narration is outside
of the rules as written, but usually happens in most groups to some extent or
other. But, note that the rules leave the authority over the framing and the
narration with the GM/Narrator.

Jamie


--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "rlbeaver" <rlbeaver@...> wrote:
> "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."

My monthly request...

The issue 4 deadline is coming up on April 21st, so if you have a Gloranthan
article lying around looking for an opportunity to be published, drop me a
line: rjremr@...

If you would like to take a look at previous issues  drop on over to
http://ruleonemagazine.com/ and click on the "Archives" button.

We also have a contest coming up in a week - I'll explain more then.

RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad
R. Sabatini, Scaramouche

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.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We do it like Stuart's group.

I suspect that, at the start, you'll have to lead by example (narrating each
outcome yourself) but I recommend you encourage your players to have a go at
narration of both victorious and defeated outcomes.

We find it particularly useful to give players narration responsibility for
their own defeats. I recommend encouraging them towards enthusiasm for this.

The main reason for my recommendations is that this gives players ownership of
the most important part of the game. It also gets the group into a cooperative
mode (distinct from Stuart's observation of "adversarial", traditional gaming).
Particularly with defeats, it can show that failure can be fun

We do it like Stuart's group.

I suspect that, at the start, you'll have to lead by example (narrating each
outcome yourself) but I recommend you encourage your players to have a go at
narration of both victorious and defeated outcomes.

We find it particularly useful to give players narration responsibility for
their own defeats. I recommend encouraging them towards enthusiasm for this.

The main reason for my recommendations is that this gives players ownership of
the most important part of the game. It also gets the group into a cooperative
mode (distinct from Stuart's observation of "adversarial", traditional gaming).
Particularly with defeats, it can show that failure can be fun

It is possible that the initial confusion about how the game is supposed to play
is based on the difference between the game text and the differing styles
espoused here and elsewhere.

I would be cautious when suggesting that passing narration rights to the players
is a good thing for HQ2.

There are no specific rules that help HQ2 players to operate with shared
narration or shared scene framing and much of the GM advice in the book is
incompatible with such an open approach to narration authority.

Games that work well with shared narration such as Zombie Cinema, have built in
authority rules and clear cut role divisions. They have been designed with
shared narration in mind. (Indeed ZC is designed to teach the concept of shared
scene framing and as such isn't quite a full game so much as a fun skill honing
exercise.)

See also the designer of this game's own thoughts on 'the pitfalls of narrative
technique in rpg play' here:
http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-r\
pg-play/

As soon as you transplant techniques into games with different design aims you
are wandering off of the map (or as some games designers like to say
"invalidating the warranty"). I like to do this, but it can be full of potential
confusion and may result in unsatisfying play if the people at the table have
differing understandings of the changes. For an obvious example, you can no
longer look up the intent of a rule to solve problems if you have adjusted
things.

This is not to say that a group shouldn't do this so much as to say that when
first playing a game it is probably wise to learn how all of the parts are
supposed to work together before you start tinkering with the clockwork, and
given that rpgs have many emergent qualities this would mean playing the game
for a few sessions.

RPG GMs have traditionally taken bits from all sorts of games and house-ruled
like crazy, but most of the games that served as the raw material for such
home-brews had compatible aims. With the more broad spectrum of RPGs since the
indy scene this is no longer true. You cant just grab the concept of narrational
authority and throw it into a Shadowrun game without a good bit of crowbarring
and explanation.

In my view the core mechanics of HQ are a powerful tool that can be utilised by
many styles of play, but the overall rule set including the copious advice, has
a specific style in mind, and it is probably worth becoming familiar with this
style before adapting it too radically.

Jamie

Thanks for all the replies.   I'm not sure where I got the idea that narration
was passed, I may just have read too much into the rules.

I've played in another "narrative" game where the GM's role was more handling
negotiation of the outcome and situation of the players.   It didn't seem like
fun (I enjoy trying to play out NPCs the players encounter (no, not GMPCs, I'm
very cautious about that.)  I was concerned that this was the GM's role in this
system as well.

It doesn't sound like this lends itself to this, but I'll ask anyway...is there
any chance there exists a pre-generated adventure that I could read through to
get a feel for the game?

It's just not clicking for me, but there are parts that sound like I would
really like this system...

Greg Stafford, in association with Rule One magazine, is offering a copy of
History of the Heortling People, shipped anywhere in the world, to the first
person to correctly answer the question posted at the bottom his story in issue
3 of Rule One Magazine: Jotarang, A Story of the First-Age.

As this is a "First Response wins" contest, The question will be posted on
Wednesday, April 13, at 8:00 AM Pacific time. I apologize for those people for
whom this is the middle of the night.

The Myth of Jotorang:
http://ruleonemagazine.com/Iss3/Myth_Jotorang.php

The Contest question and rules will be at the bottom of the article.

Greg Stafford,
Roderick Robertson
From such a face and form as mine, the noblest sentiments sound like the black
utterances of a depraved imagination.
--Dick Deadeye

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not online that I know of. What is it that is not clicking? What kind of game
have you played before? What kind of game do you have in mind for hq?

--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "rlbeaver" <rlbeaver@...> wrote:

> It doesn't sound like this lends itself to this, but I'll ask anyway...is
there any chance there exists a pre-generated adventure that I could read
through to get a feel for the game?
>
> It's just not clicking for me, but there are parts that sound like I would
really like this system...
>

My experience is mostly crunchy games D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS, Burning Wheel,
and WHFRP 1st ed.   In lighter games, I have played Savage Worlds, Hero's
Banner, Mouse Guard.

It's difficult for me to clearly state what's not clicking.   I guess it's more
of how abstracted skill and conflict resolution is compared to games like D&D. 
In attempting to understand it, I wrote up below:

In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as play,
there's just a single resolution mechanic.

For instance, using a combat conflict, my interpretation of play is:

H1.  GM Describes Situation
H2.  Players describe what they would like the outcome to be and what
      actions (skills) they are going to use to achieve it.
H3.  GM Describes opponent's actions
H4.  Dice are rolled, results applied
H5.  If player/opponent not defeated, goto step 2

If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a high enough
margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".  As compared to D&D, it
would go:

D1.  GM Describes Situation
D2.  GM Determines order of actions
D3.  Player/opponent describe action they are attempting
D4.  Dice are rolled, results applied
D5.  If player/opponent not defeated, goto Step 3 for
     next player/opponent

It would be very rare for combat to end without at least one iteration.

My interpretation of HQ's strengths are:

- There's one resolution mechanic that is not modified by another rule.  While
D&D has one resolution mechanic, the rules of how it's applied are modified
depending on the action, for instance grapple.

- Step H2 above give players more "say" in successful results.

If that's it, then it just clicked as I was writing this, if not, then I'm still
lost and will just have to try and find a game in the open gaming at GenCon.


--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "orlanthumathi" <anti.spam@...> wrote:
>
> Not online that I know of. What is it that is not clicking? What kind of game
have you played before? What kind of game do you have in mind for hq?
>

First, let me apologize for the error which gave the wrong date for the
contest. We still managed to have a decent turnout for a "First Answer Wins"
contest.

Xavier Llobet correctly answered the question (The answer will be posted in
Issue 4, due May 1, but the question will remain on the website until then -
see if you know your early Gloranthan History!). He will recieve a copy of
"History of the Heortling People".

I will also include some personal observations on the "production" side
contest in Issue 4.

Issue 4 is shaping up with a new myth about why Donkey Carries the Death
Rune, by John Kennon; an article on the Kralori Sky, by David Millians,
another article by David aboyut the Wooyee: shamans of kralorela; Hervé
Carteau gives us his view of how Western Wizardry works, and Brendon Rehm
gives us a lovely story about an Orlanthi Boy's initiation.

There's still time to submit articles!

RR
From such a face and form as mine, the noblest sentiments sound like the
black utterances of a depraved imagination.
--Dick Deadeye

I think that to make it click with HQ2 one solution can be to forget any
other RPG you've played (in terms of rules) and think of yourself as a book
writer or a movie/tv show director. Try to think of how you would run your
favorite movie or TV show in HQ2.

What decide of the time spent on a challenge is not the number of HP of the
monster but the emotional interest of the scene and the time you wish to
allocate to it.

You are to decide if you want to resolve something in 1 action or attach
more importance to it. In Conan or in SW or others the director decide that
climbing the stair meeting guards /reaching the spaceship with Storm
troopers will take only a few minutes of the movie time. You roll a simple
contest and depending on the level of success/failure you describe the run
with some exchanged blows, or the capture of the characters and you move to
the next scene.

On a fast running scene the goal of the contest can/should be more high
level to keep the pace fast (reaching your spaceship). On a slow running and
high intensity scene each meter or small action count to keep the thrill
(taking the door, breaking the door security, retreating as the enemy
barrage fire, taking a good shoot at the enemy, running for your life,
starting your spaceship ... ).

There was a subject on this list I think about running a Dungeon crawl in
HQ2. If you can put your hand on it in the archive it could also help you,
But the general idea is that HQ2 is more oriented to running the Moria run
in LotR the movie or book way than with the grity details of a D&D fight.

Another big difference I see is that HQ2 focus on the PC actions/goals and
less on the NPC action. While the GM describe the goal of NPC, the action is
driven by the PC action. No long minutes where the DM chooses the right kind
of attack his monster will try to do.

Manuel



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM, rlbeaver <rlbeaver@...> wrote:

>
>
> My experience is mostly crunchy games D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS, Burning
> Wheel, and WHFRP 1st ed. In lighter games, I have played Savage Worlds,
> Hero's Banner, Mouse Guard.
>
> It's difficult for me to clearly state what's not clicking. I guess it's
> more of how abstracted skill and conflict resolution is compared to games
> like D&D. In attempting to understand it, I wrote up below:
>
> In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as play,
> there's just a single resolution mechanic.
>
> For instance, using a combat conflict, my interpretation of play is:
>
> H1. GM Describes Situation
> H2. Players describe what they would like the outcome to be and what
> actions (skills) they are going to use to achieve it.
> H3. GM Describes opponent's actions
> H4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> H5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto step 2
>
> If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a high
> enough margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll". As compared to
> D&D, it would go:
>
> D1. GM Describes Situation
> D2. GM Determines order of actions
> D3. Player/opponent describe action they are attempting
> D4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> D5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto Step 3 for
> next player/opponent
>
> It would be very rare for combat to end without at least one iteration.
>
> My interpretation of HQ's strengths are:
>
> - There's one resolution mechanic that is not modified by another rule.
> While D&D has one resolution mechanic, the rules of how it's applied are
> modified depending on the action, for instance grapple.
>
> - Step H2 above give players more "say" in successful results.
>
> If that's it, then it just clicked as I was writing this, if not, then I'm
> still lost and will just have to try and find a game in the open gaming at
> GenCon.
>
>
> --- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com <HeroQuest-RPG%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "orlanthumathi" <anti.spam@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not online that I know of. What is it that is not clicking? What kind of
> game have you played before? What kind of game do you have in mind for hq?
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 08:39 +0200, Manuel MOLINIER wrote:
> I think that to make it click with HQ2 one solution can be to forget any
> other RPG you've played (in terms of rules) and think of yourself as a book
> writer or a movie/tv show director. Try to think of how you would run your
> favorite movie or TV show in HQ2.
>
> What decide of the time spent on a challenge is not the number of HP of the
> monster but the emotional interest of the scene and the time you wish to
> allocate to it.
>

Of course, for purposes of maintaining a sense of plausibility a match
between the apparent difficulty of the challenge and the intensity of
the scene should be maintained, in my opinion.

> You are to decide if you want to resolve something in 1 action or attach
> more importance to it. In Conan or in SW or others the director decide that
> climbing the stair meeting guards /reaching the spaceship with Storm
> troopers will take only a few minutes of the movie time. You roll a simple
> contest and depending on the level of success/failure you describe the run
> with some exchanged blows, or the capture of the characters and you move to
> the next scene.

With the caveat that even simply contests can suddenly - and
surprisingly because this is improvised - become important due to a
total defeat, for example.

All the best,


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Hmm,
My feeling is that what might not be clicking for you is the drama.
If the scene should have dramatic impact then you use a dramatic
resolution mechanic.
If it is something that is not 'in camera' then at most a simple roll
should be used.
In the basics of what you have written there is not much difference.
But in HQ though there is not a huge list of modifiers and qualifiers
that need to be added and subtracted and factored in.
IMHO the elegance of HQ is the single conflict resolution system allows
the players and GM's more flexibility on how to dramatically achieve
their goals.  You don't just have to beat the paste out of your opponent
with a stick to win.  You can out talk them, out run them, humiliate
them all as part of the same contest.  Me and my players took several
sessions before we managed to get our heads around how it worked for us.
Invest some time with your players and try out some situations and see
how it works for you.
Run a traditional sword duel.  Then a social/legal argument.  Then a
small battle with many participants.  Then a battle against a single
large opponent.  Then a romance/tryst between two people.
Encourage your players to challenge the situation with a different way
of resolving it.  My players always look at their opposition an try to
find the weakest point to attack them.  Legalese or Bluff or Combat or
Magic or a Chase.  But also remember sometimes people just want a good
beatdown.

On 14/04/2010 11:21 PM, rlbeaver wrote:
>
> My experience is mostly crunchy games D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS,
> Burning Wheel, and WHFRP 1st ed. In lighter games, I have played
> Savage Worlds, Hero's Banner, Mouse Guard.
>
> It's difficult for me to clearly state what's not clicking. I guess
> it's more of how abstracted skill and conflict resolution is compared
> to games like D&D. In attempting to understand it, I wrote up below:
>
> In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as
> play, there's just a single resolution mechanic.
>
> For instance, using a combat conflict, my interpretation of play is:
>
> H1. GM Describes Situation
> H2. Players describe what they would like the outcome to be and what
> actions (skills) they are going to use to achieve it.
> H3. GM Describes opponent's actions
> H4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> H5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto step 2
>
> If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a
> high enough margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll". As
> compared to D&D, it would go:
>
> D1. GM Describes Situation
> D2. GM Determines order of actions
> D3. Player/opponent describe action they are attempting
> D4. Dice are rolled, results applied
> D5. If player/opponent not defeated, goto Step 3 for
> next player/opponent
>
> It would be very rare for combat to end without at least one iteration.
>
> My interpretation of HQ's strengths are:
>
> - There's one resolution mechanic that is not modified by another
> rule. While D&D has one resolution mechanic, the rules of how it's
> applied are modified depending on the action, for instance grapple.
>
> - Step H2 above give players more "say" in successful results.
>
> If that's it, then it just clicked as I was writing this, if not, then
> I'm still lost and will just have to try and find a game in the open
> gaming at GenCon.
>
> --- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:HeroQuest-RPG%40yahoogroups.com>, "orlanthumathi"
> <anti.spam@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not online that I know of. What is it that is not clicking? What
> kind of game have you played before? What kind of game do you have in
> mind for hq?
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 14 Apr 2010, at 06:21, rlbeaver wrote:

> If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a high enough
margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".


For what it's worth, our group almost always resolves situations that involve
potential killing with extended contests, and things are seldom over in one
roll.

David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 17:54 -0700, David Dunham wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 06:21, rlbeaver wrote:
>
> > If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a
> high enough margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".
>
>
> For what it's worth, our group almost always resolves situations that
> involve potential killing with extended contests, and things are
> seldom over in one roll.

I presume you mean the killing of a PC. The reason being, of course,
that death is dramatically important for most characters :)

Although there are possibly exceptions...


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I agree with David, unless someone is a "professional" killer or suffering
from a mental disease facing possibility of killing or getting killed should
be a dramatically important scene for the characters and the players. Even
if it involves killing others.
By this I don't mean climbing to a tree or a cliff or driving your car but
engaging in physical violence with the aim to kill.

Manuel

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 17:54 -0700, David Dunham wrote:
> > On 14 Apr 2010, at 06:21, rlbeaver wrote:
> >
> > > If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a
> > high enough margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, our group almost always resolves situations that
> > involve potential killing with extended contests, and things are
> > seldom over in one roll.
>
> I presume you mean the killing of a PC. The reason being, of course,
> that death is dramatically important for most characters :)
>
> Although there are possibly exceptions...
>
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:43, Manuel MOLINIER wrote:

> I agree with David, unless someone is a "professional" killer or suffering
> from a mental disease facing possibility of killing or getting killed should
> be a dramatically important scene for the characters and the players. Even
> if it involves killing others.


Good point. I meant the killing of others, since PCs never get killed (all those
hero points...).

But there are exceptions -- I vaguely recall some episodes involving fortresses,
where dealing with the sentries was a simple contest. Because the dramatic scene
was the upcoming big fight.

David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

I think I can see a knot in your thinking here, and it is apparently founded on
what conflicts are for and how they work in RPGs in general.

--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "rlbeaver" <rlbeaver@...> wrote:
>
> My experience is mostly crunchy games D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS, Burning
Wheel, and WHFRP 1st ed.   In lighter games, I have played Savage Worlds, Hero's
Banner, Mouse Guard.

It would be enlightening to know how your experiences with Mouse Guard worked
out, did you find the procedures of play (turn taking and very specific scene
framing) any more difficult?

> It's difficult for me to clearly state what's not clicking.   I guess it's
more of how abstracted skill and conflict resolution is compared to games like
D&D.  In attempting to understand it, I wrote up below:
>
I know this can be very frustrating - I have had a number of cognitive blocks in
learning HQ and they often turn out to be not what they first appear. And my
initial thoughts on the problems have led me down blind alleys.

> In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as play,
there's just a single resolution mechanic.

This is certainly a big difference to most games and the thing that drew me to
HeroWars as it then was. A Unified conflict system is a major difference and to
me was simultaneously an eye opener and a source of confusion based on my Basic
RPG background. My first understanding was that all conflicts could be framed as
fights. (To some extent the game text itself is still stuck in this slightly
unhelpful frame of mind.)

> For instance, using a combat conflict, my interpretation of play is:
>
> H1.  GM Describes Situation
> H2.  Players describe what they would like the outcome to be and what
>      actions (skills) they are going to use to achieve it.
> H3.  GM Describes opponent's actions
> H4.  Dice are rolled, results applied
> H5.  If player/opponent not defeated, goto step 2
>
> If the player's action were "I Kill it with my BFG" and they had a high enough
margin of success, then combat is over in "one roll".

Your perceived procedure of play seems to be a bit off and focused on developing
situation but more on this later.

>As compared to D&D, it would go:
>
> D1.  GM Describes Situation
> D2.  GM Determines order of actions
> D3.  Player/opponent describe action they are attempting
> D4.  Dice are rolled, results applied
> D5.  If player/opponent not defeated, goto Step 3 for
>     next player/opponent
>
> It would be very rare for combat to end without at least one iteration.

This flow chart is focused on victory or defeat in an ongoing conflict, HQ isn't
really designed to handle this so comparisons are going to get a little weird.
Sure there is a complex extended conflict system built into HQ but the concepts
are built up from the basic simple contest, and as such don't quite translate.

> My interpretation of HQ's strengths are:
>
> - There's one resolution mechanic that is not modified by another rule.  While
D&D has one resolution mechanic, the rules of how it's applied are modified
depending on the action, for instance grapple.
>
agree
>
> - Step H2 above give players more "say" in successful results.
>
Your steps seem a bit off to me but you are on the right track, as player say is
a big part of conflict in HQ.
>
> If that's it, then it just clicked as I was writing this, if not, then I'm
still lost and will just have to try and find a game in the open gaming at
GenCon.

Playing is certainly a good idea. I would offer to try and run through an
example over MSN but as you appear to be on the opposite side of the pond to me
(England) that could be tricky time wise (but not impossible if you were up for
a cross time zone chat).

--

My procedure for play would be thus:

GM frames scenes for the players, play remains free and unfettered by mechanics
until the player wants their character to do something that the GM (or the
player) thinks should be opposed.

Player states how he wishes to overcome the situation
GM describes the resisting factor
Dice roll
Player (and GM but I never liked that) decides if he wishes to sway the dice
result with Hero Points
Overall outcome is narrated with reference to final dice and HP, which means
that the situation is now resolved (no direct iteration).

Free play resumes and either further conflicts ensue or the scene closes. But
further conflict must either be different or developed, the previous conflicts
cannot be repeated.

----

For standard Extended Contests the only difference is that the situation is not
fully resolved until a number of points are scored, so effectively iteration is
used and the narration is left open ended until this. But overall its still
functionally identical to a simple contest.

---

But what is resolved means is often different in HQ than it would be in D&D.

D&D primarily utilises Task Resolution which focuses on what the action of the
character is, and models the consequence of that action in the world. Such
actions are only working towards a resolution of the conflict, not seeking to
resolve it overall.

HQ utilises Conflict Resolution (which is poorly defined in most modern RPGs
IMO) which focuses on the two opposing agents in the conflict and seeks to
resolve their opposing intents in a single pass.

The difference between "I hit him with my sword" and "I fight him with my sword
in order to gain entry to the guarded room".

---

So your hunch that the difference is partly on the players sway over the terms
of the conflict is true, as this will greatly impact how the conflict itself is
played out. But they also have an impact in the middle of the process by using
Hero Points to sway the mechanical result. This helps them express how important
victory is in this specific contest.

---

I should probably pause for comment here, any thoughts or insights?

Jamie

--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "orlanthumathi" <anti.spam@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think I can see a knot in your thinking here, and it is apparently founded
on what conflicts are for and how they work in RPGs in general.
>
> --- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "rlbeaver" <rlbeaver@> wrote:
> >
>
> It would be enlightening to know how your experiences with Mouse Guard worked
out, did you find the procedures of play (turn taking and very specific scene
framing) any more difficult?

I didn't find it difficult per se, it was more my players having a real
difficult time framing what they wanted out of the conflict.   Because I spent
so much time coaching them through it, it felt more like we did "here's a
situation" "negotiate a resolution" and repeat without the roleplay in between
the situation.

>
> > In my reading of it, it really doesn't seem that different as far as play,
there's just a single resolution mechanic.
>
> This is certainly a big difference to most games and the thing that drew me to
HeroWars as it then was. A Unified conflict system is a major difference and to
me was simultaneously an eye opener and a source of confusion based on my Basic
RPG background. My first understanding was that all conflicts could be framed as
fights. (To some extent the game text itself is still stuck in this slightly
unhelpful frame of mind.)

I may have understated that.  The single resolution mechanic is what is making
me want to like HQ.   I agree, it is a big difference to the other games.   Just
the flow of the game is basically the same up to the  point there is a
"conflict" of any time.  Conflict doesn't revolve around task resolution as in
D&D.

While I don't do dungeon crawls, in other games it tends to be focused on the
tasks of detecting traps, fighting baddies, taking stuff, fighting the BBEG.   I
see HQ as hand waving all the tasks as more narration unless they have more
significance to the story line, then you use the resolution mechanic.  Or, you
could take the whole dungeon as an extended resolution garnering points to see
if you go through.   I think...

> Your perceived procedure of play seems to be a bit off and focused on
developing situation but more on this later.

>
> Playing is certainly a good idea. I would offer to try and run through an
example over MSN but as you appear to be on the opposite side of the pond to me
(England) that could be tricky time wise (but not impossible if you were up for
a cross time zone chat).

I may take you up on that, although it would have to be a weekend when my wife
hasn't planned something.  With spring coming on, that's getting more difficult.

>
> --
>
> My procedure for play would be thus:
>

I think I might be getting it...playing would certainly help.  I may try running
my wife through a scenario or two and post the results to see where I go wrong
if I do.


> ---
>
> I should probably pause for comment here, any thoughts or insights?
>
> Jamie
>

<was more my players having a real
difficult time framing what they wanted out of the conflict. Because I spent so
much time coaching them through it, it felt more like we did "here's a
situation" "negotiate a resolution" and repeat without the roleplay in between
the situation.>

At least with HQ there isn't a scene framing structure to make you feel like
each scene has to have a specific point. So it should be easier. I would
recommend not pulling out too far from the action in general. I have wrestled
with conflict scope for some time and I find that it works best for me if you
resolve the obvious immediate conflicts rather than widening everything out into
overall conflicts.

So I wouldn't make a whole raid on a castle a single roll, I would either play
through each stage "you are confonted with a large wall with guards on the
ramparts, how do you plan to get past them?"; or just jump to the first major
obstacle/branch point "You scale the walls, sneak past the guards and find
yourself in an antichamber with a large door and sounds of conversation". These
kinds of decisions are entirely based on the players expectations. The player of
a sneak thief may revel in not even having to roll to pass the guards but will
probably become frustrated if they never get to test thier sneaking abilities.

The trick with conflict resolution is to keep the action flowing regardless of
outcome. A major failure could result in the guards being alerted to a break-in
attempt and a cat and mouse game in the outer grounds while the players seek
another route in, but it shouldn't just be a failure and back to the drawing
board. This is where the Failure is Fun maxim comes in, or in other words
failure must still move the story forwards not backwards.

< I see HQ as hand waving all the tasks as more narration unless they have more
significance to the story line, then you use the resolution mechanic. Or, you
could take the whole dungeon as an extended resolution garnering points to see
if you go through. I think...>

I see this as another possible stumbling block. Deciding what is important to
the story line can keep play moving forward and focused, but I really don't
think you need focus on the overall arc so much as how important is this current
conflict to the players, and where is it pointing us. There is even a procedure
built in to help you identify if it was more important than you realised. All
automatic successes are minor but can be bumped up two steps to complete with a
player hero point.


<I may take you up on that, although it would have to be a weekend when my wife
hasn't planned something. With spring coming on, that's getting more difficult.>

Same here with wife and parents making plans but PM me if you want to chat it
through. I record all of the games I run so I could send you some edited stuff
to show how I tend to run things.

Jamie

On 18 Apr 2010, at 07:09, orlanthumathi wrote:

> < I see HQ as hand waving all the tasks as more narration unless they have
more
> significance to the story line, then you use the resolution mechanic. >
>
> I see this as another possible stumbling block. Deciding what is important to
the story line can keep play moving forward and focused, but I really don't
think you need focus on the overall arc so much as how important is this current
conflict to the players, and where is it pointing us.


And I think to some extent HeroQuest is designed to work with emergent arcs. In
other words, you don't have to have things planned. As the players improvise a
story, the pass/fail cycle gives you a way to turn that into an arc that at
least is shaped like a planned arc.

Of course, the pass/fail cycle is optional -- if you the GM have a better idea
of what you want, go for it!

David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

The recent announcement of Alephtar Games partnering with Cubicle-7 to produce
"Nameless Streets" has got me wondering.  Aside from them and d101, has anyone
else announced plans to use the Gateway license to produce other HQ-compatible
supplements?

Dear Steadfast Tentacles Allies, Friends and Sworn Enemies,

check out:

www.the-kraken.de

THE KRAKEN is a new gaming event brought to you by the fabled Tentacles
team.

Fabian
--

THE KRAKEN
A Gaming Vacation
August 4-9, 2010
Schloss Neuhausen, Germany
www.the-kraken.de

I don't know but the Nameless Streets announcement is very cool. HeroQuest is
learning to leave the Gloranthan nest and fly.

--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "Ben" <zomben@...> wrote:
>
> The recent announcement of Alephtar Games partnering with Cubicle-7 to produce
"Nameless Streets" has got me wondering.  Aside from them and d101, has anyone
else announced plans to use the Gateway license to produce other HQ-compatible
supplements?
>

We have a cornucopia of Gloranthan goodness this issue.

The first thing you'll notice is the stunning cover by John Hughes. Just
click on the picture, and you'll be taken to the Contents page.

Contents:
John Kennon tells us the tale of why Donkey carries the Death Rune, David
Millians regales us with two more
Kralorelan articles, Hervé Carteau gives us a look at the mechanics of
Malkioni Wizardry, Brendon Rehm tells of the
Initiation of an Orlanthi boy, I contribute a heroband for Chaos-fighting
cannonfoder, and we reveal the answer to
April's "Name Jotorang" contest. Finally, Chris Pringle gives us a Cryptic
Crossword.

Enjoy the issue!

Downloads in Full-color and/or Black & White are available, as are the
archived back issues.

And, of course, I'm calling for articles for  Issue 5 (August release).
I'd really like to get some more Gloranthan adventures - no need to worry if
they are written for HeroQuest, RuneQuest, D&D or My Little Pony - I'll take
them all. Other articles happily accepted as well!

RR
From such a face and form as mine, the noblest sentiments sound like the
black utterances of a depraved imagination.
--Dick Deadeye

That would be

http://ruleonemagazine.com/

Nice one RRR!


John


At 07:14 AM 2/05/2010, you wrote:
>We have a cornucopia of Gloranthan goodness this issue.
>
>The first thing you'll notice is the stunning cover by John Hughes. Just
>click on the picture, and you'll be taken to the Contents page.
>
>Contents:
>John Kennon tells us the tale of why Donkey carries the Death Rune, David
>Millians regales us with two more
>Kralorelan articles, Hervé Carteau gives us a look at the mechanics of
>Malkioni Wizardry, Brendon Rehm tells of the
>Initiation of an Orlanthi boy, I contribute a heroband for Chaos-fighting
>cannonfoder, and we reveal the answer to
>April's "Name Jotorang" contest. Finally, Chris Pringle gives us a Cryptic
>Crossword.
>
>Enjoy the issue!
>
>Downloads in Full-color and/or Black & White are available, as are the
>archived back issues.
>
>And, of course, I'm calling for articles for  Issue 5 (August release).
>I'd really like to get some more Gloranthan adventures - no need to worry if
>they are written for HeroQuest, RuneQuest, D&D or My Little Pony - I'll take
>them all. Other articles happily accepted as well!
>
>RR
> From such a face and form as mine, the noblest sentiments sound like the
>black utterances of a depraved imagination.
>--Dick Deadeye
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


===================================

John Hughes
Publications Editor
Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research
College of Arts and Social Sciences
Hanna Neumann Building #21
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

T: +61 2 6125 0649
F: +61 2 6125 9730
W: www.anu.edu.au/caepr


CRICOS Provider #00120C

========================================
The CAEPR website has a large and growing electronic
library of publications available for free download,
including Discussion Papers, Working Papers,
Monographs and Topical Issues.
========================================

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HeroQuest-RPG
group.

   File        : /HQ Star Wars PC Sheet.pdf
   Uploaded by : zomben <zomben@...>
   Description : Star Wars themed HeroQuest v. 2 PC sheet.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-RPG/files/HQ%20Star%20Wars%20PC%20Sheet.\
pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

zomben <zomben@...>

Can we remove the spam from the links & folders please & lock these bozos out,
please?

Yes, sorry. I've been a bit distracted of late.

Jeff


--- In HeroQuest-RPG@yahoogroups.com, "Sven" <vikingjarl@...> wrote:
>
> Can we remove the spam from the links & folders please & lock these bozos out,
please?
>