Adding A Little Crunch to Heroquest

[Mike Holmes]

Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Such as swordsmanship styles in a swashbuckling game?

Maybe.

In The Princess Bride, yes, Inigo and Westly announce their styles as they duel near the cliff. But to me, this is simply each of them escallating their display of their prowess. It's quite the same as them then revealing that they are not left handed. Just a way to point out how great they are as swordsmen (I'm seeing this as larger and larger AP bids). In other words, it's just color that speaks to their very high levels of ability.

In any case, other than that example, do you really ever hear about styles from the source material? Think of all the pirate movies, Robin Hood remakes, musketteers, etc, etc. How often is swordsmanship style mentioned at all? How often does it have an effect? I mean, what's more important in most pirate films, whether the captain was trained in Austria, or whether the girl he loves in on that other ship? Is it more important that he uses an Salzburg Lunge, or that he hates his opponent?

The thing is, if you like that sort of flowery description, you can add it on, no problem with the normal rules (this is how I'd imagine that the PB narration would come about in play). But if you aren't interested, then you can ignore it, and just focus what matters to the genre.

If Deacon had said that he wanted specifically to have a game that was all about comparative fencing styles, then I'd be all for supporting what he's talking about. But he's said that he just wants this as an interrim solution for getting to normal HQ play - that without this support that play won't work for his players. This is what I object to. HQ has everything you need to support a rather intense Swashbuckling game without addition. I'd argue that HQ will look more like the source material with normal HQ, than it would if you added crunch to the swordsmanship.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

In any case, other than that example, do you really ever hear about styles from the source material?

In Scaramouche you get some work with it -- especially as the main character developes his own 'scientific' style and then has to pit it in a thematic battle of science vs natural might when he fights his nemesis in a battle that shows the shift from the old French nobility to the new French democracy and why everything went wrong.

Of course, as you say that could simply be handled by giving the characters different secondary abilities to augment with. Our hero would have things like "read three moves in advance" and "set up trap" with "master of the scientific style" and "perceptive" while the villain would have "massive physical prowess" and "untouchable panache" with some "reputation as unbeatable in a duel" and "master of the French style" tossed in.

Could go either way, honestly.

The thing to worry about, however, is less whether the system is going to emulate literature to a T or if it is going to give a good game experience. For folks like you (and honestly, me as well) the level of crunch that the magic system has might not be neccisary in other areas. For some groups, however, porting that level of crunch into something that is going to be the focus of the game might be fitting.

Heck, if I were to convert 7th Sea to HeroQuest I'd put the crunch into swordsmanship and take it right out of magic. Reverse the polarity, as it were.

[Deacon Blues]

Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Such as swordsmanship styles in a swashbuckling game?

Maybe.

If Deacon had said that he wanted specifically to have a game that was all about comparative fencing styles, then I'd be all for supporting what he's talking about. But he's said that he just wants this as an interrim solution for getting to normal HQ play - that without this support that play won't work for his players. This is what I object to. HQ has everything you need to support a rather intense Swashbuckling game without addition. I'd argue that HQ will look more like the source material with normal HQ, than it would if you added crunch to the swordsmanship.

Mike

Well, yes and no.  Swashbuckling was simply the example I picked because, at the moment, I spend all day thinking about 7th Sea and can recite sword schools off the top of my head.

In the game in question, the "crunch" I planned on introducing was Debate Schools: styles of rhetorical tradition that are taught throughout the campaign world.  Debate Schools function very similarly to Theistic pantheons in Glorantha: an intro level where you can use the skills as augments, an intermediate level where you can use the skills as abilities, and a master level where you get a Secret.  The Schools are organized around different styles of argument: Weighing the Evidence, Passionate Speechmaking, "Socratic" Dialogue, etc.

I intended this to serve two purposes: one, to highlight the alternatives to direct, violent conflict that plague 90% of all fantasy RPGs out there (or, the reason Brand suspected); two, to ease the players into a less crunchy system than 7th Sea (or, the reason Mike suspected).  Mike's given me plenty to chew on that might cause me to question the latter, but I still like the former to a sufficient amount to keep it in.

[Mike Holmes]

The thing to worry about, however, is less whether the system is going to emulate literature to a T or if it is going to give a good game experience. For folks like you (and honestly, me as well) the level of crunch that the magic system has might not be neccisary in other areas. For some groups, however, porting that level of crunch into something that is going to be the focus of the game might be fitting.

I get this argument all the time. I"m not allowed to bring in literature and movies as references because RPGs aren't literature or movies.

I completely agree. Nobody is trying to emulate these things to a "T". But you have to have some target to shoot for. It seems that the standard target for RPGs is something like "A wargame version of what would, sans the wargame part, look mostly like literature or movies in terms of the elements introduced into the narrative."

Which is a circular argument. We want something like other RPGs because we want something that's like other RPGs. Which begs the question why not play those other RPGs then? Or, rather, I question the assumption. I think that most people want something closer to something like literature and movies, but are so used to how RPGs typically operate, that they think that it's impossible to get the sort of play that I'm advocating. Or that getting to it would be so difficult that only by going in small steps can you get there.

When in fact, playing the non-wargame version is actually much easier. Heck, what does "convert 7th Sea" mean? Convert the setting and swashbuckling feel? Done and done without any more crunch. Convert all that plus the parts that make the system unique? Well, then why not just play 7th Sea?

Ask John Wick what parts of the 7th Sea system he though were important before the project got taken over. I'm guessing that drama dice are key, and all that setting stuff he'd chuck (I want to say that I remember him saying this, but I can't quote him from memory on the subject). I do have the following for support, however; here we can see that John didn't want the other countries:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=318

I'm seeing splat here - material to sell supplements. Which I think adds a layer onto the basic swashbuckling structure that was never really the point of the game. More importantly, I know some people play without this stuff, and get more milage out of the game, not less. Because all of the elements needed to make it fun are there. The swordsmanship stuff seems there just to put in more material on the notion that since other games have this stuff, it must be needed.

Falkenstien doesn't have this sort of stuff. Also compare how Lace and Steel and Swashbuckler accomplish emulation of the genre. I won't suggest that people check out GURPS Swashbucklers (other than as a good reference), but I could use it as a counterexample of how inappropriate crunch is superfluous to good emulation of a genre.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I intended this to serve two purposes: one, to highlight the alternatives to direct, violent conflict that plague 90% of all fantasy RPGs out there (or, the reason Brand suspected); two, to ease the players into a less crunchy system than 7th Sea (or, the reason Mike suspected).  Mike's given me plenty to chew on that might cause me to question the latter, but I still like the former to a sufficient amount to keep it in.

Hey, the schools sound pretty cool. If you're hoping to create a focus this way, then go for it. Again, however, this can probably be accomplished with few alterations to the system. Perhaps everyone gets a school keyword with appropriate abilities?

Or do you feel a need to have some sort of breakdown of "maneuvers" in debate in order to accomplish the change in focus?

If you really want to shift the focus to this, then just rate these keywords a bit higher than anything else.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

Heck, what does "convert 7th Sea" mean? Convert the setting and swashbuckling feel? Done and done without any more crunch. Convert all that plus the parts that make the system unique? Well, then why not just play 7th Sea?

Because it doesn't give me the play experience that I want except in small areas? While I sort of like the swashbuckling schools I dislike almost every other element of the game engine and so wouldn't want to play with it. (In the end I didn't even like how Drama Dice worked.)

On the other hand, HeroQuest may give me the experience that I want. So I want to bring in elements from the other game that I liked, if I can do so without doing anything that breaks, unbalances, or changes the basic dynamic of the game. As we know for a fact that it's possible to have a certain amount of crunch in HeroQuest if it is focused on something central to the game (the magic rules for a Gloranthan game, frex) it is no problem at all to use that same crunch just in a different focus.

So really, I don't buy the proposal that adding some crunch to make swordsmanship schools is in any way against what HeroQuest is trying to do, nor that by doing so I might as well be playing 7th Sea.

Now, I do agree that many RPGers do things just because other RPGs do them, and I do agree that is not always (or even often) desirable. My point wasn't "don't go looking to literature, look to the history of RPGs" because we know that a ... well, I won't say what it is, but it isn't nice. What I would argue is that RPGs are not literature, but not wargames, and have vast potential left untapped and unexplored -- so when given a choice between something that will make the game, as game, fun it should be given due consideration.

I do have the following for support, however; here we can see that John didn't want the other countries:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=318

Ironic, that, considering that no one I've ever played with wanted much of anything to do with Vodace. Montaigne was where it was at man, all the way. Much as I advocate tightly designed games, sometimes I wonder if the fact that things get changed from the original vision isn't a good thing for a large number of people playing the game....

Oh yea, and the Laura Bishop that posted at the end of that thread was talking about a 7th Sea game I played with her. There is stuff on it here: http://www.nekodojo.org/~vir/7thSea/index.html

I'm seeing splat here - material to sell supplements. Which I think adds a layer onto the basic swashbuckling structure that was never really the point of the game. More importantly, I know some people play without this stuff, and get more milage out of the game, not less. [/b]

And I know people that play with it and have more fun, not less. People who, mind you, were new to gaming and so didn't come in with expectations of what should or should not be there. The fact that some people play without it does not make it extra baggage, it just makes it not right for them.

Falkenstien doesn't have this sort of stuff. [/b]

Falkenstien doesn't have schools, no, but it has an entire sub-game that makes master fencers come into their own. The use of the fencing skill in a duel uses a completely different set of rules than the main game, and that is a type of "crunch" all its own. (And Magic, I'll add, has another rules system on top of that.)

Also compare how Lace and Steel [/b]

Again, a completely separate system from the main system to make dueling and fencers special.

Swashbuckler[/b]

Separate system for duels -- though at least in Swashbuckler everyone is assumed able to fight and use the system on a more equal level than Lace and Steel.

See, in all of those cases I would say that there is "crunch" to the system that gives emphasis to something that is central to the system -- the fencing. Falkenstien and Lace and Steel have separate dueling games, and Swashbuckler has a massive chart and maneuver index in the middle of an otherwise rules-light game. All three do something, mechanically, to make fencing special.

Of course, that wouldn't work in HeroQuest, as one of the central strengths and points of the game is that every contest can be run using the same system for resolution. So if you want to put emphasis on that syllable you might want to do something like swordsmanship schools. Not even because 7th Sea has them, but because (the way I set it up) it uses an existing mechanic in HeroQuest designed to give focus and weight, simply in a different context.

I won't suggest that people check out GURPS Swashbucklers (other than as a good reference), but I could use it as a counterexample of how inappropriate crunch is superfluous to good emulation of a genre.

Fallacy of false dilemma Mike -- just because you want to have some crunch in a game does not mean you are going to remake GURPS. Really now.

While I will admit that my suggestion to have differnt manuevers do different system effets was probably too much, I don't see the swashbuckler styles as replacing magical styles as being so outre a concept. Actually, the easiest thing to do might just be to make the skills very specific -- so you take improv penalty if you don't have it. If you've a disarm skill you can kick it well, but if you want to disarm with your rapier skill your at penalty. Add to that some personality traits and a Mastery Secret and you could do a pretty good fencing game without much guff.

[Brand_Robins]

BTW, for those interested in Swashbuckling games with HeroQuest rules (sans much crunch – just specialized fencing keywords) there's a pretty good thread on RPG.net right now that's talking about a lot of it and looking for input.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114249

[Mike Holmes]

I think we're somewhat talking past each other here. I agree that each of these games have additional crunch with regards to fencing (even GURPS does in the standard rules - parrys are better with fencing). The point is that none of these do so by introducing new maneuvers, or by mentioning schools. TROS does this, but then TROS is all about the tactics of combat.

I'm not against creating focus using the rules as written. If he merely wants to have keywords to represent schools, then, again that's fine. And most of what you're calling "maneuvers" I'm seeing as just standard use of the Improv rules. As such, these wouldn't be any sort of change to the rules, but an interesting application. Again, what I object to is additional mechanics that require players to declare maneuvers or the like (acutally either L&S or Swashbucklers does have something like that now that I think about it).

The "Magic" crunch for Glorantha is actually mostly about how you aquire abilites. Have to be an initiate to use affinities, have to be a devotee to use feats, etc, etc. This is all very pertinent to the ideas of belief that surround magic in Glorantha, and as such are, I think, merited (though I could make some counterarguments there, too). Such developmental ideas don't seem pertinent to swashbuckling. I mean, even if you added it as color, I don't see it's actual use as adding anything in actual play.

I mean, to make an analogy, one could have various masters as saints, ane "veneration" becomes "study" of their styles using the wizardry rules, and spells in grimores become maneuvers in, well, grimoires. But in Glorantha, this means that when casting your spell, that you're saying something about your beliefs. Whereas with the swordmaster system it would mean just that you had the ability. Which is enumerated just as well without the additional "Grimoire" extra level of enumeration.

Hmm. OK, now that I think of it, if you included relationships to the school, then you could make a cool game about inter-school politics or something. But, again, is that what's desired? In point of fact, it's not. What the poster wants, it turns out, is stuff about debate schools. And I think that he's on the right track simply by having keywords to represent that.

Again, I'm not saying that one should never add any crunch anywhere, just that it needs to only be added where neccessary to create the sought after focus, and that often simply adding normal keywords works just fine.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

What the poster wants, it turns out, is stuff about debate schools. And I think that he's on the right track simply by having keywords to represent that.

Maybe true. Though if it was based on the Classical rhetorical and debate schools there could be interschool rivalry. Witness Plato and the sophists, for example, followed by the debates about the superiority of the Asiatic or Attic style during the late Roman republic.

Though you're right -- keywords should represent what he wants just fine. The only issue would really be if the keywords have personality traits to bias them against other schools.

(In this corner, the master of misdirection, the verbal tornado, Gorgias! And in this corner, the legal eagle, the Pharisee of philosophy, Cicero!)

[Mike Holmes]

Maybe true. Though if it was based on the Classical rhetorical and debate schools there could be interschool rivalry. Witness Plato and the sophists, for example, followed by the debates about the superiority of the Asiatic or Attic style during the late Roman republic.

Though you're right -- keywords should represent what he wants just fine. The only issue would really be if the keywords have personality traits to bias them against other schools.

Well, of course. Every properly designed keyword should include the appropriate relationships and personality traits associated with it. Are there keywords without these things?

Sounds like you're just talking about keywords matching the setting element that they define. Which I can only nod to. The question is would such a keyword need to have something like the Spiritist/Practitioner/Shaman excallation to it, along with stuff like the special rules for releasing fetishes. I can't see why anything like that would be needed - though it's not my setting.

Deacon. Is there anything about being in a particular school that a "normal" keyword wouldn't cover?

Mike

[Alai]

Our points are the same then - ons should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

In essence, yes.  I suppose that implicitly captures also _whether_ one wishes more Exploration, at all...  To which I'd add the corollary that one should likewise be open to _subtracting_ 'crunchy bits'.  On grounds of inappropriateness, obviously, but also simply deprioritisation.

[Mike Holmes]

In essence, yes.  I suppose that implicitly captures also _whether_ one wishes more Exploration, at all...  To which I'd add the corollary that one should likewise be open to _subtracting_ 'crunchy bits'.  On grounds of inappropriateness, obviously, but also simply deprioritisation.

Yes. The nice thing is that, since the HQ engine covers every possible form of contest in terms of resolution, you never completely lose the ability to explore any of these things no matter how much "specific crunch" you take out of the system. One could handle all Gloranthan magic, for instance, without all the special rules for it. Might not be as interesting, overall, but it would still be effective.

Mike

[Alai]

I may be on thinnish ground here as firstly, I may be worsening thread 'drift', and secondly, asking dumb questions about an area I'm somewhat wilfully ignorant of (the 7th Sea background). But, oh well... (Brick wall rather than disingenuous, at any rate.)

Because it doesn't give me the play experience that I want except in small areas? While I sort of like the swashbuckling schools I dislike almost every other element of the game engine and so wouldn't want to play with it. (In the end I didn't even like how Drama Dice worked.)

On the other hand, HeroQuest may give me the experience that I want. So I want to bring in elements from the other game that I liked, if I can do so without doing anything that breaks, unbalances, or changes the basic dynamic of the game. As we know for a fact that it's possible to have a certain amount of crunch in HeroQuest if it is focused on something central to the game (the magic rules for a Gloranthan game, frex) it is no problem at all to use that same crunch just in a different focus.

What is it that the material crucially says about the schools? Or more precisely, what it is about that that you'd also like to capture in HQ? Is it their social interrelationships? (Common founders, deadly rivals, thrown together by circumstance, etc.) Is it their 'dominance relation'? (RPS and what have you?) Is it the detail of specific techniques typical of or particular to each? (Or, combining the last two, of the specifics of the interactions between particular techniques and what have you.)

None of those seem to me to require extra crunch, though they may each motivate it to a greater or lesser degree. One can obviously can a lot of mileage out of concepts such as the all-embracing SitMod, but those I think work in isolation best when there's a 'received wisdom' or other common perception about what's actually 'appropriate' in a given situation. This is relatively easy to do for 'realiistic' situations, or where there are established genre conventions for same. (Assuming everyone is on the same genre page...) For elements that are unique to a given settining, or where the behaviour is yoked to some specific genre convention unto itself, it's probably going to be valuable to make these things explicit in some manner.

While I will admit that my suggestion to have differnt manuevers do different system effets was probably too much, I don't see the swashbuckler styles as replacing magical styles as being so outre a concept. Actually, the easiest thing to do might just be to make the skills very specific -- so you take improv penalty if you don't have it. If you've a disarm skill you can kick it well, but if you want to disarm with your rapier skill your at penalty. Add to that some personality traits and a Mastery Secret and you could do a pretty good fencing game without much guff.

IMO the Secrets mechanics in HQ are where the 'crunch' starts to get a little painful for my (only moderately sensitive) teeth. In particular the transition between "Feats", with their 'Cool and ambiguous tag' "mechanic" and these widgets with their Extremely Specific Game Effect is pretty jarring.  But that may be an overly narrow response to your broader point.

Cheers,
Alex.