In this thread i´d like to talk about soviets HQStarWars

[Der_Renegat]

I dug the pdf out last week and had another closer look at it - really awesome just because of the sheer amount of work that must have been involved !!!

I have a few questions for Mark/soviet himself.
Also, it seems, there is only one thread that deals with actual play.


I start with some questions for Mark:

One thing that i absolutely dont get are the numbers:
it starts with the scale. The way i understand the HQ scale, 13 is in no way competent, 17 proficient or 5M professionell.
But thats what the HQ-StarWars scale says at the beginning of the pdf.

The way i see it a 13 is an absolute beginner.
At 17 you have some kind of general idea.
And at 5M you have some in depth training. Maybe its debatable if thats an expert......


Next, i dont understand a lot of equipment and vehicle ratings.

Why is anything rated 10 ??? In HQ everything starts with 13, doesnt it ?
Did you use some kind of scale?
Why is an Airspeeder: Fast 10, Fly High 10 and Maneuverable 10 ???

Why has a Blaster Pistol: short ranged 15 ? Is this supposed to be a negative augment ? (A Blaster only has set to stun)


Here are some general questions:

StarWars is a very visual movie. How is gameplay different to the movies ?
I have the first edition WEG StarWars game and i remember there was quite some lengthy chapter about how you do a StarWars rpg. Does the HQ system add much to gameplay ?

How many people are here on this list who have tried a game of HQ-StarWars ??




best

Christian

[sebastianz]

Hi, Christian.

I once ran Star Wars using HQ. It was a one-shot, introducing the players to the system and it seemed easier this way than otherwise. I did not use all of HQ Star Wars, rather using it for inspiration and the keywords. There is too much crunch in it with all the random-seeming numbers for equipment. Also, I do not like the specialty keyword (or how it is called) because it disrupts char gen. Some of the specialties, like starship captain, are simply followers (sidekicks) or special equipment. Normal char creation is more open to these things. Rather, there should have been more community keywords. Rebels, Jedi, Empire, Sith, and Fringe could all be keywords. But it is one of Marks early works, so I can understand it. And indeed, a lot of work.
Well, one session is not much to give a judgement on how it plays. There was some struggle learning the system. But two things I remember:
1) One player really enjoyed having those relationships on the char sheet. The descriptors should have been even more explicit.
2) Naming abilities helps visualize what a character does. This really showed when the characters both wanted to get the rebel leader on their side. The players exchanged augments until they were done and rolled. That was a very visual scene.

So much for my comments

Sebastian.

[soviet]

One thing that i absolutely dont get are the numbers:
it starts with the scale. The way i understand the HQ scale, 13 is in no way competent, 17 proficient or 5M professionell.
But thats what the HQ-StarWars scale says at the beginning of the pdf.

IIRC I took that scale from the HQ Hero's Book.

The way i see it a 13 is an absolute beginner.
At 17 you have some kind of general idea.
And at 5M you have some in depth training. Maybe its debatable if thats an expert......

I think those descriptions sound a little bit low. Remember that a starting character in HQ with 13s and 17s is not supposed to be a 1st level/apprentice character, he is already a Hero in a local sense (analogous to 3rd level or so in D&D terms).

In any event, that section of the .pdf is just meant as a quick guide to the system for my players. It's not meant as a manifesto for how Star Wars HQ is supposed to be run or anything, so if you find it differs from your interpretation of the HQ scale then just change it. YSWHQWV, after all.

Next, i dont understand a lot of equipment and vehicle ratings.

Why is anything rated 10 ??? In HQ everything starts with 13, doesnt it ?
Did you use some kind of scale?
Why is an Airspeeder: Fast 10, Fly High 10 and Maneuverable 10 ???

It's perfectly fine to rate things at 10, or 7, or whatever. There are quite a few creatures and spirits in the HQ book with ratings like that. It's true that new abilities bought with HP will start at 13+, but note that it's also perfectly possible to take a flaw or something and start it at lower rating. Anything rated higher than 6 is something that differs from the norm in some way and is therefore potentially interesting. 

Transport vehicles and weapons are set up to work like equipment does in HQ - to give a flat bonus to certain actions. They are written as abilities for colour and to allow for the occasional focussed contest, but 90% of the time they should be augmenting only.

It might be worth noting that I wrote the .pdf without having ever played HQ, and now that I have become more experienced with how to get the system to do what I want there are a few things I have changed. For one thing, I don't use those rules for equipment anymore. I now just treat weapons and vehicles (yes, even spaceships!) like any other kind of ability - if players want things to have a mechanical effect rather than just a descriptive effect, they have to spend some hero points on them! I also don't use the rules for scaling damage or lethal high-tech weaponry.

Why has a Blaster Pistol: short ranged 15 ? Is this supposed to be a negative augment ? (A Blaster only has set to stun)

It's mostly a negative augment, yes. If you crunch the numbers most of the weapons are effectively a +2 augment. Some of them have additional abilities that can be used as additional augments, but that comes with an equal amount of flaws that can be used as negative augments, so they balance out to be the same. So a blaster has Set to Stun 15 (+2). A blaster pistol has Set to Stun 15 (+2) and also Quick 15 (+2), but it also has Short Ranged 15 (-2) for a grand total of +2.

Then again, some of the flaws are written to be a bit ambiguous and can be used as a plus by creative players in the right situation. For instance, when one of my players was fighting a particularly acrobatic Sith assassin who kept dodging all his shots, he went right up to her and put the gun against her head exactly like that scene from the Matrix - 'Dodge This!', he said. So in that situation of course I let him have the +2 for Short Ranged.

StarWars is a very visual movie. How is gameplay different to the movies ?

Well, the acting is much better.

No, seriously, I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be a bit more specific?

I have the first edition WEG StarWars game and i remember there was quite some lengthy chapter about how you do a StarWars rpg. Does the HQ system add much to gameplay ?

I haven't played any of the other SW systems, but having seen some of the d20 stat blocks for spaceships and the like really makes me appreciate how cool the keyword system really is. My TIE fighters are described by maybe a dozen words, while d20 TIE fighters are described by a giant paragraph of numbers. Which is more effective at getting across the character of what a TIE fighter should be like in play?

Exactly.

I think HQ is absolutely fantastic for Star Wars because it lets us run quick, free-flowing conflicts that are about what we want them to be about (conflict resolution, setting stakes) and don't get bogged down in detail we don't want. HQ acknowledges the fact that Luke's feelings towards the Princess are at least as important as the kind of blaster he is carrying, and lets that have a direct impact on play. Players can perform reckless stunts and act like swashbucklers without getting penalised by the rules (in fact quite the opposite, as I tend to give healthy improv bonuses for that stuff). As GM I can make up keywords for alien races, exotic locales, and weird tech in the space of 2 minutes without ever worrying about how to represent it mechanically - everything is just abilities and contests.

Next time you watch a lightsabre duel or a dogfight from one of the movies pay close attention to the tempo of the scene. The language of AP bids, improv modifiers and augments seems to me like a much better description of what is going on than the language of range increments, to-hit rolls and attacks of opportunity.

Mark.

[Mike Holmes]

At the risk of ruining a good zen lesson if Mark is prevaricating...

He's saying that in Star Wars D6 and such, the gameplay doesn't match the action of the movies because of the system in use. I know what he means.

Thing is, I haven't played HQ Star Wars. But I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't match the movies perfectly.

This is what I love about HQ fantasy play, it's exactly the sort of stuff that one would see in a fantasy movie. Yeah, movies aren't as deep as books...but then neither are RPGs since they're extemporaneous. So they end up a lot like movies, assuming that the system doesn't make them about powering up or such. IME.

Mike

[Der_Renegat]

Quote from: Der_Renegat on August 21, 2006, 09:11:56 PM
StarWars is a very visual movie. How is gameplay different to the movies ?

No, seriously, I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be a bit more specific?

hmm, you have a spectacular effect by the minute:
crazy sounds, huge warmachines that look like animals, giant explosions, mad maneuvers, enormous cities, strange and exotic planets, a zillion different creatures, great costumes, etc.

I remember the WEG StarWars game had some tips in the designing adventures section.
Space Opera was defined as:
lots of action
lots of combat
good vs. evil
cliched
everything is on a grand scale

There were also tips what should happen in episodes to create that StarWars feel:
gunplay
ship to ship combat
a chase
interacting with NPC´s
problem solving
(and maybe i should include lightabre duel, but the book was before the new episodes)

[Mike Holmes]

Well, yeah, it's a RPG so you're going to lose some of the kineticism of the movies by having to narrate the action. But other than the viceral feel, if you include all these elements, why should the events be any different in HQ play of SW and the movies?

Hell, we had a duel in a scene in the last session I ran that could have been right out of a Star Wars movie. Only it was in my Shadow World fantasy game. If I can get that sort of action out of fantasy with people flying all over and flashing blades, I don't see why it would be hard to get in SWHQ. How did I get that narration? Well, I told Thomas to narrate his simple contest win in the duel...and he did.

Here's a fascinating fact, a simple contest gives better results for something like a LS duel than an extended contest does. Because the person narrating is completely unfettered in what they narrate to get from point A to point B.

Oh, sure, use extended contests for SW. Use them for those really drawn out battle scenes. Starting from the first assault, and ending with taking the palace of Naboo. But make each duel one round in that contest. And then let people narrate the use of their force powers or droid abilites to their heart's desire.

The Ultimate Duel gets an extended contest sure - but note how it ranges around. Any single locale duel should be one roll.

Mike

[Barna]

It might be worth noting that I wrote the .pdf without having ever played HQ, and now that I have become more experienced with how to get the system to do what I want there are a few things I have changed. For one thing, I don't use those rules for equipment anymore. I now just treat weapons and vehicles (yes, even spaceships!) like any other kind of ability - if players want things to have a mechanical effect rather than just a descriptive effect, they have to spend some hero points on them! I also don't use the rules for scaling damage or lethal high-tech weaponry.

I'm a real fan of you SW HQ conversion and it really made me want to run SW with this system. I'm interested in how you changed your initial writeup (even if you did not put it on paper) based on your HQ experience.

[soviet]

It might be worth noting that I wrote the .pdf without having ever played HQ, and now that I have become more experienced with how to get the system to do what I want there are a few things I have changed. For one thing, I don't use those rules for equipment anymore. I now just treat weapons and vehicles (yes, even spaceships!) like any other kind of ability - if players want things to have a mechanical effect rather than just a descriptive effect, they have to spend some hero points on them! I also don't use the rules for scaling damage or lethal high-tech weaponry.

I'm a real fan of you SW HQ conversion and it really made me want to run SW with this system. I'm interested in how you changed your initial writeup (even if you did not put it on paper) based on your HQ experience.

Thanks. I don't think I changed or dropped any rules other than the ones already mentioned. Our play improved massively as we went on, but that was more from conflict resolution et al finally clicking for us than anything else. I found that getting that to sink in was absolutely key; it was a real headache at first, but once we 'got it' SWHQ turned out to be a lot of fun.

I happen to have a metric ton of new material written on the SF genre as a whole, including some changes to the keyword structure that I will be implementing in my own game, but as that's all destined for QuestWorlds I can't really talk about it too much. Sorry! That said, if you have any specific problems or questions about SWHQ I'll be happy to give them my best shot.

Mark 

[Joel P. Shempert]

Aaargh! Torture! It's just too cruel hearing mentions of Questworlds at this point. . .;)

QW, come out, already!

[Der_Renegat]

Aaargh! Torture! It's just too cruel hearing mentions of Questworlds at this point. . .;)

Really??
I actually wonder if QW will be able to add anything that any hardcore-fan of HQ doesnt know already.... Especially when you are a member of this board for some years now.

I found the teasers on rpg.net very disappointing....

[Joel P. Shempert]

Hmm, you may be right. . .but when I hear things like "some changes to the keyword structure . . .destined for QuestWorlds. . ." my appetite whets. It sounds like far from a mere genericizing of HQ, it's a refinement on the system, and I can't wait to see what refinements those might be.