Good Mike -- Bad Mike

[Peter Nordstrand]

I saw that Mike Holmes' has put up another piece of narrator advice on Issaries' website:

http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_heresies.html

These are nine very good points (although some of them would probably benefit from a little bit of further explaining) and one misunderstanding.

Mike's Heresy #10 points out that, unlike most games, the way to achieve Maximum Game Fun in HQ is not to ignore the rules, but to apply them quite vigorously. In fact, ignoring MGF is the only Heresy that actually alters the HQ rules dramatically. Which is quite ironic. The only rule to ignore is the rule that advises to ignore other rules.

Contrary to what Mike seems to believe, the "rule" of Maximum Game Fun (pg. 190) does not say that the other rules in the book should be ignored at the narrator's whim. The sentence Mike is misunderstanding is the one that begins

You will find yourself in many situations where your story will be interesting precisely because someone breaks the rules ...

Hang on! Isn't this exactly what Mike is talking about? No it isn't, because the sentence continues:

... like Aeolians using veneration to worship gods; or because something exists that "should not be," like an origami-folding woman riding a shell deer; or because someone wants something "inappropriate," like wanting to go surfing; or where heroes do something silly, like having a coke and pizza for dinner because that's what you were eating when you played.

Not a single one of these examples are about breaking the HeroQuest rules. The Aeolians aren't a game rule, they are a people in Glorantha that "breaks" the "rules" of how magic is perceived to be operating in Glorantha. Nothing in the game rules prohibits a player from playing origami-folding woman riding a shell deer; again it is about breaking Gloranthan conventions not HeroQuest game rules. The same goes for surfing heroes. The coke and pizza thing is not my idea of fun but, again, the game rules say nothing about it: Whether the player heroes are able to get their hands on coke in Glorantha is a matter of group taste, not a rulesbook question.

I rest my case.

Good job on the other nine "heresies", however.

Cheers,

[soru]

Be forewarned: Achieving understanding of Heresy #5 requires a Zen like approach that requires that one want to understand it first. If you don't want to understand it, you never will.

The thing that kind of worries me with this is I wouldn't really want to see HQ get the reputation of a game that you have to be a Zen master to play successfully.

To paraphrase someone random on rpgnet, when suggested HQ would be a suitable game for them:

'isn't that the game where you end up having endless semantic arguments about what the rules actually mean?'

I think if the document had been written as 'suggested rule changes and guidelines to make HQ better support one style of narrative play', instead of 'potential ambiguities into which you can wedge an argument that the rules already allow that type of play, if you just ignore the examples and squint a bit', then I think it would have been more useful.

soru

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi soru, whoever you are,

I think you are treating Mike's text unfairly and just a teeny weeny bit dishonestly, although I am sure you didn't mean it that way. In my humble opinion you are quoting out of context. Judging from the sentence you quote, it does indeed seem as if Mike really truly suggests that one has to be a zen master to play the game. Reading the entire article makes such an interpretation seem quite ridiculous.

For comparison consider the following example: I could quote you as once saying to Scripty that

your way is the only way to run HQ

It seems as if you really like Scripty's gaming style, but is it a fair representation of what you were trying to say? Hardly. Check it out for yourself here, and see why I am distorting the truth, even though the quote is correct.

As for "random" people, I stopped listening to them about the same time I stopped using random encounters. ;-)

[Bankuei]

Hi soru,

I also feel the zen statement is a tiny bit too far, but given a lot of the entrenched views of many old school players of RQ who are making the transition to HQ, it is somewhat warranted.  The particular idea that ratings on a character sheet don't say anything about the character, but the importance of that aspect of the character in relation to the story, is a hard one for some folks to get.  But Mike is quite right in saying that if you don't want to think about it, you won't be able to see it in that fashion.

Chris

[soru]

Is it too outrageous to suggest that if it is important to the story for a character to be strong, they should actually be strong?

Why have a 3-level system, world, rules and story, when you can just have rules and story? If you want to tell a story about a strong man, have it be about a man who is strong, not a man who, without any particular explanation, is described as weak but happens to routinely be able to pick up large stones that noone else can lift.

Just because a way of looking at things is hard to grasp and paradoxical doesn't make it better than the straightforward approach. I simply don't see what the in-play problem is that all this intellectual slipperiness is supposed to be solving.

soru

[Brand_Robins]

I simply don't see what the in-play problem is that all this intellectual slipperiness is supposed to be solving.

A horse, by the rules, has a Strong 12w trait. Does this mean that anyone with a Strong 15w trait is stronger than a horse?

A bear has Large 15w. Does this mean that anyone with a Large 20w is bigger than a bear? (Especially as a bison, which outmasses a bear, only has Large 10w.)

A wolf has Scent Prey 2w. Does this mean that anyone with Scent 10w has a better sense of smell than a wolf?

Do all of the above things mean that there should be ability maximums on attributes to show where people just have to stop (without heroquesting or magic of course)? Really, you can't be bigger than a bison can you? But if your "Large" is higher than the bison's "Large" isn't that what it means?

Mike is suggesting that no, it does not intrinsically have to mean that. It could, mind you, but it does not have to. Your Large 20w3 doesn't mean that your human character is bigger than a triceratops (Large 2w2) -- it simply means that you are better at using your size to your advantage, or that your size is more important to the story than the triceratops's is. It's just hulking, you're a hero who uses his size to do heroic things.

If you do not divorce in world simulation from game stats in HQ you won't necessarily have a problem -- but you'll either need to redo all the creature stats, introduce racial maximums, or simply accept heroes who are faster than horses, stronger than bears, and larger than triceratops.

[Bankuei]

Hi soru,

First, I don't think its necessarily a better way to play, just a different one, and I don't think Mike is arguing that either.

Is it too outrageous to suggest that if it is important to the story for a character to be strong, they should actually be strong?

Of course you can have a character who is defined as such.  What this heresy is saying, is that there is room for the strong character who is all around strong, and the character who is  strong enough at critical junctures.  Consider the cowardly character who has Courage.  Overall, they're a coward, but, when the key moment, the one that will turn the tide comes up- that's when their Courage makes all the difference.  You could apply the same logic to the "Inner Goodness" of Darth Vader at the very end of Return of the Jedi.  

If you want to tell a story about a strong man, have it be about a man who is strong, not a man who, without any particular explanation, is described as weak but happens to routinely be able to pick up large stones that noone else can lift.

This heresy isn't asking you to destroy plausibility, but to work within it, by widening your definition of what the abilities can be.  You if you had a character whose strength is defined as a story element instead of a "realism" issue, then you wouldn't have him running around doing strong things all the time- just as Darth Vader certainly wasn't going about doing nice things for everyone.

The main in play problem the heresy addresses is that if you only look at the ratings as pure "real world" equivalents, a whole lot of "unreal" things can occur.  It's real easy to augment oneself up to +10 or more, even with inexperienced characters.  Now, consider this, in real life, though I might love someone, and have some decent, related abilities, at no point is my first aid skills(6) going to jump up to those of a paramedic(17) just because I care a lot.

Once you divorce the the reality issue- it becomes plausible because, story-wise, it makes sense.  Heroes succeed because they care, because they're pure, close to their ideals, empowered by love, etc.  Villains get what they deserve because their inner flaws mar their works and bring about their own undoing.

This is just a different way of doing things, at no point has anyone said it to be "superior" or better, or anything to the like, and in a game where Your Glorantha May Vary, I'm not sure exactly what you are taking issue with as far as it as a concept.

Chris

[Peter Nordstrand]

Soru,

What are you doing?

1.
You have changed the subject. First you critizised Mike for making it seem like HeroQuest is a game that you have to be a Zen master to play successfully. Then you change the subject and instead state that you disagree with the idea that ability ratings mustn't necessary be a reflection of the in-game reality. These are two different subjects. Please indicate that you understand and recognize that.

2.
You have ignored my response to your critizism. Please respond to the post where I claim that you are treating the article unfairly and quoting out of context. Feel free to take a deep breath and think things through before answering.

[soru]

A horse, by the rules, has a Strong 12w trait. Does this mean that anyone with a Strong 15w trait is stronger than a horse?

Yes, of course.

simply accept heroes who are faster than horses, stronger than bears, and larger than triceratops.

Yes, of course. What's remotely tricky or problematic about that?

What benifit do you gain from describing the heros in-world in a way that is wildly different from their in-game capability? Is it that you are trying to use the high-fantasy HeroQuest rules for a low-fantasy setting without changing them?

And Peter, I am not saying what you claim I am, and certainly not quoting sentence fragments out of context. The only reason I used a quote at all was to provide a pointer into the article to show which part of it I was replying to.

I'll explain my point again. Anything that you can do by creative rules lawyering, you could presumably do by some explicit rule change or guideline. If you believe 'System matters', then the resulting lightly modified HQ would presumably be better for your purposes  than the current system, which, as written, doesn't mandate any particular style of play.

Honestly, I think that way of doing things that way would confuse fewer people than trying to slide a whole different way of playing into the gaps in the rule semantics.

I would love to read 'Mike's guide to tweaking HQ for optimal nar-play'.    

soru

[Scripty]

...It seems as if you really like Scripty's gaming style, but is it a fair representation of what you were trying to say? Hardly. Check it out for yourself here, and see why I am distorting the truth, even though the quote is correct.

Hi Pete,

I was just skimming through this thread when I encountered my tagline here in your post. I had to do a double-take to try and figure out exactly what you were talking about. Glad I did. I can't ever remember soru saying anything like that to me.

I appreciate your point (and my place in it) but I'd rather be kept out of this whole thing if it's all the same.

Scott

[Peter Nordstrand]

Scott,

The post was picked at random from a random thread. I was just looking for something to distort. However, I should have used an example that didn't involve a third party. My apologies.

[Scripty]

Scott,

The post was picked at random from a random thread. I was just looking for something to distort.

No harm. No hard feelings. I just wanted to make my non-participation explicit to prevent anyone coming into the thread and firing off at me or in my vicinity for a discussion I haven't really been a part of.

My experience online is that these sorts of discussions (rules and rule interpretations) never end all that well. Reference the thread you quoted. Soru and I essentially were talking about the same thing while trying alternately to convince each other that we both weren't and both were wrong or something. I wanted to avoid getting caught in a similar maelstrom on this thread, should one occur.

You made a good point, though. Glad I could contribute, even if I wasn't at my best in the referenced post.

Scott

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, man, never post things I need to see, late on Friday. I have a family, you know! :-)

OK, first, I think that you may be correct, Peter, that the MGF "ignore the rules" may in fact be meant to refer to the Gloranthan rules, and not the game rules. At least what you quoted. But I'm also as sure that the general idea of ignoring the mechanics is embeded in the attitude somewhere.

Consider that YGMV (Your Glorantha May Vary) already covers the idea of altering the "rules" of Glorantha to suit. So why do we need two of this sort of rules if one isn't about game rules? Consider, too, the textual incoherency between addressing game rules and "Glorantha" rules as separate. I believe that at least some of the authors don't see them as different from each other.

To put it another way, I have nine interpretations of nine rules that go off in a positive direction in terms of interpretations, and one that goes off in a negative way. That is, my point is precisely not to interpret MGF the way I think many do, and say that it's OK to throw out the rules and use GM fiat whenever the urge strikes. I know some people read it this way, and I think that it's not hard to see why they do. I don't think that it's an outre interpretation. Just not the one that I'd use.

So, yes, we could recast that one slightly, and say it positively, and say
#10 points out that the MGF rule speaks pretty clearly to the metaphyisical "rules" of Glorantha, and should be interpreted that way as opposed to thinking that it applies to ignoring game rules in play.

Because, again, what the heresies are, is a list of interpretations that I think typically come out of the readings made by people who assume certain traditions of play. One of those traditions is "System Doesn't Matter," and you can throw it out the window any time the system seems inconvenient. Again, the heresies are just to point out that just that sort of traditional reading of the rules is only one way to look at it.

Put another way, I'm just being nicer than you, and assuming that the alternate readings are valid. I could, too, say, "This isn't the right way to read this, my way is the right way!" But I'm specifically not doing that. I'll leave which way is "right" or "wrong" up to the individual reader.


Soru, we've been over this before. I shouldn't have to say this again, but here goes. Given that I've said that the traditional reading is valid, and that I'm not challenging the traditional readings, and that I'm even going so far as to call my versions "heresies" to point out that they might not be popular readings even, I don't see why you would accuse me of saying that this is how HQ is supposed to be played. It's an alternate reading of the rules that's completely unneccessary. I'm just trying to show another way to play for those who might be interested.

As for the Zen comment, there was some levity involved there, but I'll stand by it. As people have pointed out, I don't say that you have to be a Zen master (in fact, that's a westernism, and almost a contradiction in terms). I say you have to want to understand it. If you have a way that works, then I'm not challenging that in any way. I agree, and have agreed repeatedly that your way works just fine. It's not on me to prove that my way is better, because I haven't made any such claim. You can try to prove that your way is better if you like, but you're missing something. There is, in fact something that we who play the way that I delineate "get" out of playing the way we do. It's not simple to explain, however, and I really don't care to try. If you think that's proof that I'm wrong somehow, feel free to crow it from the mountaintops. It won't stop me from playing the way I do, nor others.


Get this, I didn't write those heresies as an article to be posted. Chris asked me about my readings that I was humorously (I hope) calling heresies at the time. I responded, and Issiaries asked if they could post it. I even point out in the article that it's not a coherent version of how to play, just to avoid the criticism that you're now making.

I'm flattered that you'd want to see an article as a how-to on narrativism. Thing is, A) that's what I do here all the time, and B) I actually am on the hook to Issiaries for 13 more articles, many of which deal with precisely those issues. So keep your eyes peeled.

I still think that the list has some uses. Basically, I hope that it puts out there that there are alternate readings on these things because I think that people often mix interpretations which is problematic, I think. And, just possibly, some people might like my interpretations better.

This all said, I'm the first person to say that the HQ rules are confusingly incoherent on many points. That is, in leaving these interpretations ambiguous in many cases, I think they have made the game less accessible, at least for some. So I don't disagree there. I'm not sure how my pointing out one set of interpretations makes things more confusing, however; I've just tried to clarify one side of the interpretations.

Mike

[soru]

This all said, I'm the first person to say that the HQ rules are confusingly incoherent on many points. That is, in leaving these interpretations ambiguous in many cases, I think they have made the game less accessible, at least for some. So I don't disagree there. I'm not sure how my pointing out one set of interpretations makes things more confusing, however; I've just tried to clarify one side of the interpretations.

I mostly agree, except that I am really not sure that the problematic incoherency is there in the rules in all cases, sometimes it is added after the fact by a particularly 'heroic' attempt of interpetion.

For example, you say:

Mike's Heresy #5 points out that nowhere in the book does it explicitly say that ability ratings are direct indications of the potency of a character in-game.'

That's not a real honest ambiguity, that's an attempt to deconstruct the game.

Just look at some of the silliness this is leading people into. A poster above apparently thinks that Darth Vader can be reasonably described as having a high 'inner goodness' trait, which he just happens not to show any trace of in the first two films.

Someone gives you a Vader character sheet to play at a con, are you likely to get the essence of the character when you see that written there?

Wouldn't it be better to give him a decent rating in 'Love Family'? Bam, there you have the character, there you have the conflict.  

I know your approach works in-play for you, but people attempting to follow your written advice, in the way you are explaining it, seem to be failing.

Is there any chance you could reconsider your presentation, see if you can explain things in a way that confuses fewer people? Honestly, I get it, but I can see that others don't.

soru

[Bankuei]

Hi soru,

First, it would be polite and civilized to address me directly and acknowledge my post if you care to discuss it.

Second, your argument has gone from:

The thing that kind of worries me with this is I wouldn't really want to see HQ get the reputation of a game that you have to be a Zen master to play successfully.

to

Is it too outrageous to suggest that if it is important to the story for a character to be strong, they should actually be strong?

to

I know your approach works in-play for you, but people attempting to follow your written advice, in the way you are explaining it, seem to be failing.

Is there any chance you could reconsider your presentation, see if you can explain things in a way that confuses fewer people? Honestly, I get it, but I can see that others don't.

Which are 3 entirely seperate issues.  Instead of addressing anyone's responses directly, you have changed the issues you have been speaking about each time.  Your first two arguments do not jive with "Honestly, I get it..."

The only thing confusing here is your line of discussion.  It may do you well to review the etiquette policies here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1604

and

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13096

Chris