Ratings vs In-game reality -- Help!

[Mike Holmes]

I got no problem with that. That's even more catering to the narrativism mode. Basically creating in-game reality as you need to to explain how the drama arises. Yep, no problem with that at all.

Mike

[Bob McNamee]

One of my favorite things about this game is that anything that you have named, and have a score for, is far more important than anything else about you, that isn't.

Universalis is also this way.

It doesn't matter if you are a big hulking barbarian-type in your character description.

If you have Shy 13, Cowardly 17, Clumsy 23...thats way more important than any non-listed 'strength'.

Certainly not a physics-related attribute system, although plausiblity is important!

Other games, in order to be "big" and "hulking" would force you to buy a high Strength score... thankfully this game doesn't.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, maybe they do play differently that I do... :-)

OTOH, Bob's in my online game...

Mike

[Hobbitboy]

Sorry for revisiting this after all this time but it seemed better than starting a new thread.

The question is whether or not the viewpoint of what these represent is some direct representation of some "physics" model of the game (or, rather, an attempt to simulate mechanically the way that things would work in the game), or an attempt at modeling the dramatic reality of things. That is, does the Duke have a 5W2 rating (or whatever is appropriate) because that models a duke well, or because if I'm in a contest with that Duke competing against him to buy some object, that this is likely a dramatically appropriate level to set the resistance?

The HQ book (page 206) seems to favour the "physics" model over dramatic reality with respect to size...

A human has neither Large nor Small. These abilities are inappropriate for most heroes without special magic: a human cannot grow to the size of a giant simply by spending hero points. Heroes may possess abilities such as Big or Slender, but without magic these remain within the hero's racial norms, and your narrator may limit their use in contests.

Do we just disregard this paragraph or am I misinterpreting the meanings of Large/Small in this context?

Thanks,

- John

[Mike Holmes]

I can cite tons of stuff like this. Yes, the game is decidely this way, per the text. I've never said it wasn't. I merely said that it doesn't have to be to work.

Again, it's a mental exercise, not a way you'll want to play neccessarily. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm getting through. The idea of the excercise is to point out that, even if you don't go as far as saying that Big has nothing to do with the actual in-game size of the character, you also don't have to assume the usual 100% opposite ideal - that the game is modeling the in-game reality in accurate detail.

The size rules, are, actually, a good example (Soru first keyed us in to this). If the size rules were "accurate" then the biggest human would be something like Large 20W3. Then Dragons would be like Large 20W8. This based on the idea that 20W3 is about maximum human capacity in everything else. But this isn't very dramatic in many ways. We don't want Giants and Dragons to automatically win contests just because they're so much larger - it doesn't match the literature.

Put another way, the way the system you've quoted makes things, unless the narrator makes an improv modifier, a human with Big 10W2, is as potent as a Giant with Large 10W2, right? We know that they're not the same size, but the system says they are just as effective in most of these cases - with only the narrator to say otherwise.

Now, the "explanation" is that the "Large" creatures "should" have higher ratings, and that they're lower, because it represents "how effectively they can use their strength." This is from Issiaries, mind you. Read that again. They don't say "in-game" or "in a metagame fashion." Now, I know that they mean in-game, because the people protesting, are protesting the lack of modeling "accuracy" here. But it's interesting how it can be read to support the delinked viewpoint, no?

IOW, you've just cited the best evidence in the book that the method that I talk about can be used successfully, and is.

Better stated, it just won't matter in play. When you're adding up augments, and such, in an actual contest, these subjects just don't come up. Because nobody cares, really. That is, absent gamism, why does the player need to bother to check the stats of the opponent? Absent a need for "accuracy" who's suspension of disbelief is being broken? Given the very interesting dramatic outcomes of the system who could complain?

Oh, there are some who play HQ that way, but they tend to alter the system to get it to work. Starting with those size rules.

Mike

[soru]

As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found someone had written 'Cockroach 13' on his character sheet.

Is he a cockroach, or do people just relate to him as if he was?

How would you game that? How would you film it?

Are you one of the subset of people who would be happy to game it without necessarily knowing the answers to the third question?

soru

[NickHollingsworth]

> Is he a cockroach, or do people just relate to him as if he was?
> How would you game that? How would you film it?
> Are you one of the subset of people who would be happy to
> game it without necessarily knowing the answers to the third question?

I dont think its the rules business to deal with these questions. Any of the three could work. The people at the table will decide how to approach it. Its the purpose of the rules to facilitate play regardless of which approach they choose.

[Mike Holmes]

What Nick said. These things have to be handled locally, because the rules don't say anything about them. They imply some things, but in fact the implications are not consistent, either. In any case, the system works for all of these things.

One thing to consider, however, is that similarity in breadth to other abilities is important. That is, in my game Cockroach would at least have to be a species keyword in order to make the character look like, and have the physiogomy of a cockroach. And there's no mechanical way outside of heroquesting that I know of (other than taking certain GM fiat rules to a not so logical conclusion) that allow a player to place such a keyword on their sheet. Further, as an ability, it doesn't match any of the types. That is, it's not a skill, or a relationship...I'd allow it as a personality trait, however. But filming that wouldn't mean he looked like a cockroach in that case.

But then I run a pretty literalist game in many ways. If you wanted something more surreal, I don't see why you couldn't do your narrations differently.

My point is merely that the "sample" abilities of the game are meant to be informative on what sort of thing works in the "typical" game. And sticking to that has worked for me.

Mike