Alright. Thanks to Clinton for putting up this forum. Since I asked for it, I'll get the ball rolling.
One of the things that intrigues me about the design of Hero Wars is the use of one mechanic that can apply to any contest, making wooing a potential spouse as much a source of rich conflict as a knife duel, and resolving both contests in the same manner. This is an angle Kubasik discusses at length in The Interactive Toolkit essays, and I'm convinced it's a fertile and powerful element for narrativist games. Yet to date I've only seen a universal mechanic used in Hero Wars, The Story Engine, and perhaps Everway and Amber (though the latter two don't emphasize a fortune mechanic as do the first two). I can't speak to Theatrix as I haven't read it. What's particularly interesting is the bidding approach in Hero Wars and Story Engine. Letting players manage the risk level of a conflict by committing resources seems to be a great way to empower them, especially when what Ron calls the "fortune in the middle" is used. Hero Wars adds another layer in that a character can regain Action Points during a conflict, which opens the door for more of a back and forth feel to the action (whatever it happens to be).
I'm curious about how this works in practice. I haven't had a chance to play Hero Wars yet, so I'd like to hear how a bidding contest stacks up, especially in non-combat situations.
Best,
Blake
Hey, Sorcerer has a universal mechanic too! And check out Prince Valiant, Zero, Extreme Vengeance ... unless I'm missing what you mean?
Anyway, one criticism of many that people who've never played Hero Wars have leveled at it is that the bidding mechanic will detract from the role-playing experience (yeah, like initiative and damage rolls don't). I have emphatically not encountered this problem.
I have found, in fact, that the extended contest is BEST suited in debate, court case, social intrigue, and similar situations. In our very first run, I wanted to try the mechanic and had a skirmish with some trolls in mind for the end of the session. However, it so happened that the clan dispute took over the run, and the players were really into it, so we used the Extended Contest rules there instead. The skirmish I handled, quite satisfactorily, with a few Simple Contest rolls.
You gotta be careful, though, to wean players away from ANNOUNCING INTENDED SINGLE ACTIONS. This is NOT how Hero Wars works, neither for Simple nor Extended Contests. You resolve a "clash," in broad terms, then interpret it together retroactively in terms of single actions, and THEN permit modifying and re-writing all of it with Hero Points or Action Point lending, if necessary.
Best,
Ron
[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-18 21:24 ]
Something Edwards said earlier today convinced me to go out and buy it ... and I'm just flat blown away. This has got to be the most original set of rules I've -ever- seen.
(Note that one of my core personality traits is, it seems, an aversion to thinking anyone is godlike. Unless someone reveals to me that he secretly made a pact with Satan or something, I'm rapidly coming to the concluding that Robin Laws is the one exception to this.)
I was wondering a little how to handle this in play as well, actually - do you describe what's going on round-by-round, or do you wait until the end and THEN retroactively describe everything ?
I realize that by its nature, the implications of each round can't be known until the end, but it does seem a little strange to jump out of narrative for extended stretches.
- James
Hey James,
I've come to think the same about Robin Laws. Even more so now that I've got The Dying Earth.
"do you describe what's going on round-by-round, or do you wait until the end and THEN retroactively describe everything ?"
I mix it up based on the needs of the moment. Most of the time, we go by "rounds," that is, once all the clashes get resolved around the table, we then have kind of a "so, what's happening" session. In many cases, this happens before final resolution of the round, so that people can decide whether to spend Hero Points to bump, or lend Action Points, or whatever. Then once that happens, we finalize the in-game events.
"I realize that by its nature, the implications of each round can't be known until the end, but it does seem a little strange to jump out of narrative for extended stretches."
That's an interesting comment, inasmuch as I think there's a difference between narrative and narration. Yes, narration is interrupted - but to a far lesser extent than I recall from my GURPS, RoleMaster, and Champions days, when we had to flip-flip and wait for our turn and all that. In practice, I find that everyone is engaged in every roll and intent-statement during a Hero Wars round, because they're interested in how ALL of us are going to interpret it together. The production of narrative is more continuous than it looks on paper.
Best,
Ron
Ron,
Let me clarify what I meant. Most RPGs add an additional layer of mechanics for purposes of resolving combat scenes. It might be a thin layer (Hero Wars does mention movement in meters per exchange, for example), or it may be labyrinthine (see DnD or the old Runequest). Non-combat actions typically resolve using the base mechanic all by itself. In other words, the combat systems feature more granularity than non-combat aspects of these games.
In Hero Wars, the same mechanic, complete with augmentations, edges, handicaps, bidding, and degree of victory, works for all situations in the same way. Duck-plucking contests, courting rituals, horse races, and epic duels. Story Engine does the same, with the exception of adding wound levels.
I haven't seen Zero or Extreme Vengeance, so I can't speak to them. I don't have my copy of Prince Valiant at hand, but you're probably right and I omitted it. My bad.
In Sorcerer, we have a list of the round by round impact of victories and penalties in combat situations. Now I haven't reviewed my copy of Sorcerer recently (again, mea culpa -- blaze away), but my recollection is that this additional mechanic wasn't aimed at applying to non-combat contests. It may easily adapt to those situations, or I may have misunderstood the rules, in which case I grovel before you and throw ashes on my head.
Does that clear things up?
Best,
Blake
Yeah, it does, and I also realize that I'm pretty much working off my revised combat that is officially showing up in the book. In other words, the Sorcerer I'm referring to is not the one you (or hardly anyone else) has - which is totally unfair on my part. In my opinion, it's about midway between the traditional-RPG and Hero-Wars styles of handling the whole concept of combat.
So yes, I think Hero Wars gets major credit for this. There's a reason my players are going strong with 20+ runs under our belts, and for those of you who've played with me, you know that that's equivalent to maybe 100 sessions of content in old-style terms.
By the way, do check out Swashbuckler combat though. Pound for pound, I think it may be the best (vague as that term is) I've ever played.
Best,
Ron
With apologies for focusing on combat for a moment, how would you handle a situation where one warrior snipes at a target from ambush, then retreats?
For some reason, this is the sticking point as I visualize application of Hero Wars rules to a game. In the situation I've cited, my first inclination is to use a simple test against a perception trait of the target. On the other hand, a "Day of the Jackal" kind of scene (you know, a long, suspense-laden moment with the target in the crosshairs) could be resolved using the extended contest rules with action points, either those of the target or the target's friends (gendarmes) who might be looking for the assassin. The more I think about it, the more I think the dividing line is really scene importance.
An interesting idea there: Scene importance determines choice of a facilitating mechanic aimed at managing suspense.
Thoughts?
Blake
Blake,
Seems to me you've answered your own question. Once you get away from the "resolve A, then resolve B, then resolve C" mode of thinking, the whole sniper model (good example) becomes a non-issue.
Basically, what's the scene for? Is it just a matter of annoying the players, or alerting them to the fact that people out there are trying to stop them? Then have a bullet go "spang" near them - task accomplished.
Or if the sniper scene really does entail that the characters may be STOPPED or BADLY HARMED in their current story-making role, then that's all that needs to be resolved. I'd use a Simple Contest. Of course, to do that, the GM needs to be prepared for such an outcome.
Such a scene actually seems kind of hard to use for any other story-relevant reason. You're right in that an Extended Contest would be appropriate to build suspense, but for that to work, the players must know about it, which is possible but difficult. Maybe if the group was split, with one or more of them accompanying the sniper? Maybe with a really with-it group, you could do what Story Engine calls a Cut-Scene, so that the players know about the sniper but the characters don't?
Anyway, as you said, it's all a matter of scene importance. If such a scene is NOT important, then why play it? That never happens in novels or movies, or rather, not in good ones. And if it is important, then for what? Some answers to that question may have nothing to do with the amount of damage received from the sniper's gun, or whether there is any.
Best,
Ron
[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-24 14:43 ]
Quote
Ron said:
Maybe with a really with-it group, you could do what Story Engine calls a Cut-Scene, so that the players know about the sniper but the characters don't?
This idea right here--putting the players in extreme Author (and just maybe Director) stance during an extended contest--has me more excited about Hero Wars than anything else I've heard. You could easily play this scene that way. Establish ahead of time that when one participant goes to 0 AP, the shot
will be fired, then go with it. Here's how I'd imagine it (in a football stadium with the sniper behind a billboard. We'll pretend both characters have 20 AP.)
GM: The sniper trains his crosshairs on Jim's baseball cap. He spends 5 AP.
(Sniper rolls 17 - a failure - and target rolls 5 - success. Sniper loses 5 x 2 - 10 AP, and has 10 left.)
Target's player: Jim (his character) is going to buy a hot dog from this vendor that just walked by and blocked the line-of-sight between him and the sniper. I'm using 7 AP.
(Sniper rolls 8 - a success and target rolls 9 - also a success. Target has the high roll, so he loses 7 AP, and has 13 left.)
GM: The sniper shifts from side-to-side, not getting a clear shot because of the hot dog vendor, but then catches you in profile paying the vendor. It looks like a clear shot. He's going to risk 6 AP.
(Sniper rolls an 18 - a failure, and the target rolls a 1 - critical success! 6 x 2 = 12 AP are transferred to Jim's player--leaving him with 25--and the sniper is left with negative AP.)
Target's player: Sweet--he missed. As I'm paying the vendor, I drop a dollar bill and lean over to pick it up...
GM: ...and the sniper lets fly at the same moment, the bullet whizzing right over you, right where you were standing before.
----
I'm thinking of using Hero Wars for a modern four-color superhero game. The simple and extended contests, combined with the mastery system seems to fit the genre perfectly.
Clinton,
I hasten to add that Cut Scenes are NOT explicitly recommended or treated in any way in Hero Wars. The strong (very strong) Fortune-in-the-middle system is CONSISTENT with expanding the range of play to this extreme, but it's not ACKNOWLEDGED in the text.
So consider that suggestion to be a hybrid of Hero Wars mechanics with Story Engine philosophy. Of course, that sounds like you and me right there.
Best,
Ron
Clinton -
My first inclination is also to dress up Hero Wars with a lot of the other mechanisms we've been talking about here and shift it to a modern setting.
With regard to your Sniper example, there were initially two things that concerned me, but I answered one for myself. The one that's left: what skill are you having the CHARACTER roll on ? (Presumably the sniper is using his sniping skill).
The other question was, what if the character doesn't wanna play fair and says he's turning around and walking out. The obvious answer is that that's a really large AP bid; if he makes it, he's home free, if he doesn't he gets shot when he's in the door.
Incidentally, I've also an inclination to up the damage level from firearms one notch at the end of extended contests (the minimum result is 'hurt' not 'dazed'.)
- James
[ This Message was edited by: james_west on 2001-05-25 10:37 ]
Quote
On 2001-05-25 10:35, james_west wrote:
The one that's left: what skill are you having the CHARACTER roll on ? (Presumably the sniper is using his sniping skill).
You know--I didn't even think about that whatsoever. I've been working on my modern superhero version of Hero Wars--which needs little change from the Glorantha version, strangely--and I should work out Author stance rules.
Here's my first idea, which I'm throwing out to see it anyone thinks it might work: first, create/use an existing resource to establish Author stance. Perhaps an expenditure of 3 Hero Points can be used to establish a Cut Scene, in which the player has a default "Author" ability of 12. (Perhaps one could spend additional Hero Points for a higher AP - 1 Hero Point/5 AP.)
This seems a bit clunky, though. In the above example, why would the player be aware there's a sniper? If he's not aware, why the cut scene? And if the
character is aware, you don't need a cut scene. Urg.
Ok... I'm still thinking out loud. Here's my new example:
Note: Pete is a player with a PC named Jim.GM: You're enjoying the football game--the sun's come out today, and the breeze is just cool enough to temper it. You see the Badgers running back coming down the field--and he scores! The crowd roars around you. In the confusion, you just barely hear a shot ring out...
Pete: Hold on there, hoss. I'm cashing in these 3 points for a cut scene.
GM: Ok. High above the crowds, behind the scoreboard, lies a man in a black sweatshirt and khaki slacks. He's unwrapping a large rifle from oilcloth, and proceeds to unfold a tripod, and he looks through the scope. It seems to be pointed right where Jim's sitting. What's going to be your final author AP score?
Pete: Hm. I'm dropping two more hero points in, giving me 22 AP. I'm ready if you are.
....
From there, it continues about the same as before, with Jim ordering the hot dog and what not.
Does this work? It's not a very defined mechanic, and could find
major abuse in the wrong hands, but I think it works out pretty well.
_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
www.acid-reflex.com[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-05-25 15:43 ]
Clinton,
I'm with you 100% on this one, except for one thing: the opening line.
You see, announcement of intent is not announcement of outcome. Usually, traditionally, players are confined to the former and GMs are confined to the latter - so that the GM saying, "A shot rings out!" means IT HAPPENS, not that he is PROPOSING that it happen. Achieving the kind of shared-Director play we're talking about means breaking this up a little.
If it is established pre-play that the GM will always distinguish VERY CAREFULLY which is which, then we're cool. He says, "I propose that a shot rings out, from a sniper's rifle!" would instigate the chain of events (if the player is willing) that you describe. If instead he says, "I decree that a shot rings out!" then it's simply a matter of a Simple Contest to resolve the outcome of the shot (the sniper's ability vs. a "world" resistance of 14 or higher). [For the sake of completeness, one more option is that the GM could also simply decree (more extremely), that the shot hits something or someone specific without rolling, but that's nasty if the target was a player-character, and it's not to the point of the current question.]
Best,
Ron
The main thing that strikes me is that the player is blowing a LOT of hero points there. I think they're more valuable than that. (I wasn't even sure people would be willing to blow -one- for a flashback or cut scene when I was thinking about it.)
Not sure yet what my opinion is of the right way to handle this, although I very much like it in concept. I've really fallen in love with the idea of having the players be a little more into author stance, at least.
- James
In Clinton's example, my choice would be simply to use the cutscene and go from there, using "Dumb Luck" or a standard resistance for the player (and we might negotiate that number as part of the process).
Hey,
One more modification of Clinton's idea occurs to me ...
I am not certain that expending Hero Points would be necessary at all. Once you formalize things into "GM proposes" as opposed to "GM decrees," then why not just go into the Action Point bidding? James is right; Hero Points are precious.
You could ask for a small Action Point cost if you'd like (comparable to moving one's action earlier in the sequence; see the rules).
Or if you'd like to formalize/pay real money for the player getting into such well-defined Stance, go ahead and have it cost one.
Best,
Ron
Hey Ron,
I agree. From my reading of the rules, Hero Points are rare currency and shouldn't be required to activate a particular stance.
On the second suggestion: for some reason, "GM proposes" as a flat RL declaration unsettles me. It's not the power issue, because I'm fine with that, but it's the breaking of the verisimilitude. I'm used to breaking story and narrative flow to consult or make suggestions on mechanics, but I'm not used to saying, "I propose X," and then moving into a resolution phase. On the one hand, it doesn't seem that different from saying, "Make your bid," but still....
How do your players respond to this? Does it cause them to break out of the story or can they use the opportunity to deepen the narrative?
Best,
Blake
Blake,
"How do your players respond to this? Does it cause them to break out of the story or can they use the opportunity to deepen the narrative?"
The latter, emphatically. I have never found any OOC or "camera" or "co-author" type of diction, or type of resolution method, to interfere with player-engagement. I think the general philosophy of being in, speaking in, and thinking in character (or the GM operating only in terms of the character's senses) is largely misguided.
What DOES break the engagement is when the announcement-resolution relationship is DISRUPTED, which happens when no one is sure whether announcing an action is PROPOSING it or INITIATING it. People get really frustrated and disengage immediately when this happens.
The standard, 80s-style solution is to have a rather strict order of action, with or without Fortune methods - Champions veterans will recall SPD and DEX; Feng Shui players will recognize Shot Cost; and we are all familiar with "roll initiative." All of these solutions give a player a specified moment in which to announce AND initiate an action.
I suggest that these methods are largely marred by (1) adding lots of search time and (2) creating a "freeze" effect on everyone but the character who happens to be acting. Players tend to disengage in the dead space while waiting for their turns.
Zero (which Sorcerer imitates), Hero Wars, and Swashbuckler all offer different, very functional solutions, in my opinion. And again, these solutions are built to engage EVERYONE in the combat/action sequence, the whole time. I've found them all to be extremely successful.
Best,
Ron
Well, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb... Year-old topic, and a GNSish one to boot? I may be ashamed of myself in the morning. ;-)
Very interesting idea about the integration of different narrative modes and the HW resolution system, which I have to concur on both counts, isn't even hinted at by HW per say, but is entirely consistent with it. There are certainly some "creative control" and just plain communication issues here with selection of appropriate "stance" (obviously this is the Executive Producer Meta-Stance: which of the flakey creative types do we use the whacky idea of for _this_ scene?). I'm fairly devoid of helpful suggestions on that score. But on a more abstract level, one consideration is precisely the one that "what ability?" speaks to: the possessor of Blind Luck 7W3 is logically going to be a magnet for such scenes. (And so might the guy with the Destined to Die Tragically flaw, and not in a good way...) So in a sense it goes right back to char creation: in what stance (or more likely in what rough and ready combination) did you write your "100 words"? If they tell us who your character is in "authorial" voice, it speaks to a need to use some sort of authorial resolution method, as opposed to if it's strictly a first-person, or third-person game-world view of the individual.
Thought-provoking notion, certainly: thanks all.
The player and the character don't have to have the same knowledge - the player could make bids for avoiding the sniper "my head passes under the dugout roof in the snipers scope", and the whole thing could be played out on the assumption the character is actually unaware. The players goal for the mechanics is "frustrate the sniper". The discharge of the round could actually occur at any point, but it would be one of the absolute decisions that the narrator should bear in mind they can't call back as a result of AP trading. But you could even use the shot to represent the final defeat of the sniper as a miss which gives their position away, or you could even switch the combat all the way to a hand to hand duel with knives. The "Snipe" ability sets up the AP pool, but after that any sequence of abilities can be actively employed during the contest. So in another scenario the snipers shot could be the opening scene in a Bond-esque chase that is mostly resolved with movement abilities.