I almost put these at the end of another thread, but figured they might better be served as their own thread.

Finally got a chance to play, running a couple of guys in a tweaked DnD adventure to test out actually playing the system in theory.

The sheer amount of rethinking you have to do from years of task-based resolution mentality is impressive, and it will take a while to smooth it all out. At the same time, it became evident just how much the system lends itself to setting up OTHER kinds of contests, which excited everyone.

We're working on putting together a HeroQuest game proper now, and I think that will go well.

But a few more questions came up in how to frame contests. For instance, we had the PCs run across a knight trying to run down a peasant who was fleeing towards them. Now, I understand that the contest is "Stop the knight from doing that", but I ended up unsure about how to resolve it.

Should everyone (4PCs) get a shot at stopping the knight? It seems odd when you have 4 PCs each trying to stop the same consequence for each to roll against the same resistance. Should I have them each pitch what they are going to do, see who has the highest total, and augment him with everyone else?

I get that a contest to stop him makes sense, then reframe a NEW contest in light of the new situation. (Stringing simple contests make sense when each contest is a new situation. Contests don't need to end scenes.) But even in the general case of a single foe against the group, I'm not sure if a series of individual simple contests make sense.

Another thing I ended up being unsure on how to handle was someone trying to figure out if someone was lying. I like the idea of keeping all rolls above board and in front, but I wasn't sure if that made sense in such a scenario. I ended up rolling in front, but not stating what the resistance was, doing the calculation in my head and just revealing the information. They couldn't then be sure what they were getting, although they were free to interpret the results with the limited info they had. (That seemed to work well.)

I also think years of rolling for everything resulted in far too many rolls, many of them trivial, that I should have just let them succeed at as heroes. (Part of that was me, some was them just not feeling right if they hadn't rolled for it -- probably a hold over of years of DnD).

I'm rambling a bit, it's late. But especially the combat question I'd be curious to see people's takes on. (I ended up running it as 4 consecutive simple contests, all won by the Horseman. He had good abilities for this kind of thing, and a distinct distance advantage. I wanted it to be hard to save the villager, but if they got lucky that would have been fine.)

Two ideas come to mind:

A group simple contest (HQ p65)

Having three of the player heroes augment the fourth.

Hi,

I'd do the group contest, allowing the player with either the most active action("I grab his leg and unseat him!") or else the highest score("I have Wrestling 19!") be the primary with the other folks augmenting him or her.

An important mental shift regarding the goals in play need be taken into account...If the goal is to stop the knight before he runs down the poor fellow, failure means the person gets trampled, and you can still narrate that the heroes capture or kill him after the fact without making a second contest.

This allows you to save time with only one contest, and also gives the players a chance to make a meaningful decision and show you how their heroes react to the situation, regardless of success or failure. Also, the "wounds" taken by the heroes probably won't be phsysical, but more psychological from failing to save an innocent.

As far as the issue regarding lying, the question you need to ask is, "How do I want to run my game?" Your current answer works well if you absolutely do not want to have a rift between player and character knowledge. If you don't mind it, you can simply give a resistance, and on a failure, say, "You're not sure", which is true. You could also out and out tell the players the true facts, roll, and if they fail, let them create what their characters believe("Wouldn't it be more fun if Joseph thinks she's cheating on him?").

This depends on how you want to run your game.

Chris

Mostly what Chris said.

Consider that HQ probably best supports a mode where the players should know things that their PCs don't. Well, that could just be the local bias talking, but I and others hereabouts feel that the HQ rules do certain things that separate the player from the character anyhow. As such, there's little reason not to go with that flow. This means that the player thinks of himself more as an author of the character than "being" the character - what we call Author Stance, as opposed to Actor Stance.

For example, the "no repeat attempts" rule is classic here. It tells the players that the idea is not to think of the outcome of some event in terms of the task succeeding or failing, but in terms of the character meeting or failing at achieving their goal. Which means that the player is being encouraged to step outside the character, and see him as a character in a story and say, "hmmm, yeah, I guess it makes sense for Ragnar to be done chasing that guy who I just failed to catch." As opposed to, "I'm the character, I can choose to keep chasing him."

HQ is full of stuff like this. So, in order for it all to work together best (or at least in one coherent fashion) the players should think of the characters as something that they're helping to author. As an author, if you know that somebody is lying, you don't act on that knowledge, you separate what you know from what the character knows, and have the character do what makes sense for the character.

This is potentially controversial, BTW. Some would argue that a much better mode is to keep player and character knowledge aligned. If you really want to go that way, then there's an entirely different set of help that we should be giving to you. It's somewhat complicated to explain, but rather important.

On the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll. Now, in this particular example, I wouldn't have done a group thing. I can't think of any way that makes sense for most of the PCs to augment the other. Oh, maybe they could shout encouragement to the horseman. But instead consider framing things like so: this is obviously the horseman's strong suit, so make the contest just him against the knight in terms of getting there in time. If the other players can augment, they will. But if the other PCs are on foot or just known to be slower, highlight the single character. Win or lose, the other PCs come trotting up just after the conclusion of the contest.

If they don't like that, if they want to get there first to save the peasant, then, Voila! They're in competition with the other guy to get there, and are another side. The contest becomes "be the first to get to the peasant."

Also, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Oh, and:

I wanted it to be hard to save the villager, but if they got lucky that would have been fine.

Hi LC,

But a few more questions came up in how to frame contests. For instance, we had the PCs run across a knight trying to run down a peasant who was fleeing towards them. Now, I understand that the contest is "Stop the knight from doing that", but I ended up unsure about how to resolve it.

Should everyone (4PCs) get a shot at stopping the knight? It seems odd when you have 4 PCs each trying to stop the same consequence for each to roll against the same resistance. Should I have them each pitch what they are going to do, see who has the highest total, and augment him with everyone else?

Not wanting to derail this thread, but I've been reading this as it is the kind of situation that would cause me to stop and think, and 'crash' (just like windows )

I had a similar 'crash' during the first session I ran of the Ranson escort scenario and couldn't work out how to treat the ambush using javelins.

My question relates to group contests in respect of having an effective leader, or everyone doing their own thing.

Anyway, my question, is this.

Imagine we have two groups; A & B.

Group A is a bunch of disorganised Stormbulls. A collection of individuals with no cohesion.

Group B is a trained Lunar comando unit with a Leader and works as a team.

Given similar levels of ability, how would you reflect an advantage for Group B?

My instinct is that an organised unit with a leader of a similar ability should defeat a disorganised unit.

Would discipline and teamwork become a Work Together ability to use as an Augment?

Any comments appreciated.

The Lunars will all be footsoldiers with Mass Combat Tactics abilities (see the keyword). The Heortlings will be warriors without such an ability. Also you might allow the Lunar leader to use his "Lead Soldiers" ability as the primary ability, while the Storm Bull will no doubt be using his combat ability to inspire his troops.

It could be argued that this simple +2 per soldier for the mass combat tactics is why the Lunars win a lot in the early history. :-)

This is just one way to do this, BTW. If the groups are large enough then actually you should use the mass combat rules in the book. Meaning that the Primary ability on the Lunar side is Mass Combat Tactics. Whereas in the Heortling side it'll probably be their normal combat ability perhaps with an improv modifier for this not being solo combat. Then leadership for each leader augments the group.

Or you can use the community support rules to augment your character's Leader ability. There are a number of ways to run this. See also the section on hordes for ideas. Once you know a couple of the methods a good one will always suggest itself to get the feel that you want for the contest.

Mike

Thanks Mike.

Good suggestions.

Hi everybody. Sorry I bailed on the thread after starting it, I was travelling for work.

I'll try to go through these in order. This is gonna be long. :)

Bankuei wrote: An important mental shift regarding the goals in play need be taken into account...If the goal is to stop the knight before he runs down the poor fellow, failure means the person gets trampled, and you can still narrate that the heroes capture or kill him after the fact without making a second contest.

Bankuei wrote: You could also out and out tell the players the true facts, roll, and if they fail, let them create what their characters believe("Wouldn't it be more fun if Joseph thinks she's cheating on him?").

Mike Holmes wrote: This is potentially controversial, BTW. Some would argue that a much better mode is to keep player and character knowledge aligned. If you really want to go that way, then there's an entirely different set of help that we should be giving to you. It's somewhat complicated to explain, but rather important.

Mike Holmes wrote: On the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Mike Holmes wrote: As long as you always think of every resolution as opening the door to other contests, you'll do fine.

Mike Holmes wrote: Lastly, not sure wether to roll for something? Ask the player(s) in question. "Want to roll for X, or should we just say you get it and move on?" When you're sure, call for the roll. Otherwise ask. Basically, only roll if somebody is interested.

buserian wrote: If they take a couple of seconds to come up with a plan, then yeah, have one player make the roll and the others support him.

If they don't make a plan, or don't have time to, but just each start doing something, making it a group simple contest works well if all of the PCs have about the same goal: "What a cowardly villein, I'm going to attack him with my sword!" "Yeah, I'll blast him with my Lightning Bolt." "I'll try to kill his horse to stop him." They all have the same goal, but are not working together, and so a group simple contest might work best.

If the heroes are new to each other, and don't even seem to talk to each other, or if it best serves the drama of the scene, run four separate simple contests, with the knight having to defeat each of the heroes in turn. As he brushes each of them aside or skewers them (thus teaching them the value of teamwork in the future), narrate the increased look of terror in the peasant's eyes, hwo mcuh more labored his breathing his, how he is running a bit slower, or maybe looks behind him when one of the PCs screams in agony and so he trips, and has to get up again.

lightcastle wrote: I think this was particularly blatant in this case because this was more a mystery, and not particularly Narrativist, it was just a chance to work out with the system, since I was all theory, no practice until now. That seemed to make it harder for me to let character and player knowledge get too far apart. Since the actual game, once started, will not be so strictly a "find out what's going on" story (I intend to be FAR more Narrativist in constructing it, although that's a whole other kettle of fish on how well I'll manage it... ) I think it will be easier for them to be in Author stance. (And I will be encouraging it.)

Mike Holmes wrote: On the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll.

That lends itself to the "pick a leader and augment" approach. In this case,you had someone trying to use a spell to entangle the knight, two people using missle weapons to wound/slow him down, and a horseman trying to beat the knight to the peasant. I'm not sure who I would have picked to be central (I could have let the players do it or defaulted to highest ability) but I can see them all helping since they are trying to do one thing.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Explain please, oh my Yoda. :-) (I think I know what you're getting at, but don't want to put words in your mouth.)

And another thing pops into mind.. does the Multiple Opponents rule ever come into play here?

Mike, I do so love picking your brain. :)

Mike Holmes wrote: Oops, I forgot part of my process. When I start a contest, and there are potentially many sides, I ask everyone "who wants to roll, and who wants to join somebody else?" Basically, everyone who wants to roll is a "side". Those who don't indicate they want to roll must either join up with someone else, or become their own side, or not participate in the contest.

Basically, let the player decide how to organize it. Often they'll realize that their best shot is to rally around a leader. But if they want to "compete" to accomplish the goal first, that's a valid player desire as well.

Mike Holmes wrote: The problem is that this carries all sorts of implications regarding things like character goals. So you have to reject that thinking. The contest is never framed until you know what the goals are.

Or, maybe you find this all implausible (some argue that).

No "combat." Instead you have one character trying to kill another while that character tries to get away. Or one trying to injure another while he tries to daze his opponent in return. Or one tryint to scar his opponent, while the other tries to dodge until the first character tires.

Here's a good example from this forum. Two characters were sparring. The narrator assumed that this was a combat, and had them roll, and one character ended up injuring the other. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The goal of sparring isn't to injure each other, but precisely the opposite - it's to learn something about combat by simulating it in as safe a way as is practicable. Instead, they should have rolled against some resistance that depended on how important the lesson was, and thus how difficult it was to learn, with failure, not sucess, indicating that somebody got injured. They could each roll individually, or one could augment the other.

Sure does. Remember that for every one guy you have, you cancel out one of theirs. So, if it's your three guys against four, you're group's roll is penalized -3.

Mike Holmes wrote: Don't get me wrong. Violence is still a fun, viable, and common option. But it doesn't get precedence. Consider the above performed as a simple contest. No back and forth, just one guy trying to convince the other, while the other tries to kill him. The abilities have to be compared directly. Some would say, "How can words stop a sword?" If B goes to that, doesn't that trump A? No, it doesn't. What you have to do in this case is discover why it makes sense. Like I've said, perhaps in this situation it's just A coming up with the argument that makes sense as B closes the distance between. Or maybe A dodges while he explains.

It's a matter of POV, Simon. Basically what I'm saying is that we're conditioned to think that if one person it attacking, then the whole contest has become combat, no matter what the goals of the other participant are. It becomes a question of escallation. Player A says that they want to convince B. B says that, basically as a defense, they want to attack back. The idea being that combat trumps discussion, and therefor that means that they have to do combat.

Consider the opposite case. If somebody attacks, and then I say that I want to defend with an argument, you say that that's just inappropriate, and that I have to come up with something more appropriate, or take a massive Improv penalty (or that we have to do your simultaneous method - we'll assume for now that nobody wants to do an extended contest here). The point is that combat is getting privileged. To make combat equal, then if you resist an attempt to persuade by saying that you're trying to cut me down, then my persuasion should go first, with your ability being dissallowed, or getting a massive improv mod.

Do you see where the potential inequality is? It's in assuming that if a player declares an escallation to combat, that this pre-empts all ofher contests. This is very much against the spirit of the rules. The "no repeat attempts" rule implies that the framing of a contest makes it self-contained against attempts to manipulate it into something that it's not. Like some sort of extended contest, or, in this case I'd argue, into another sort of contest entirely.

The argument that I hear is that "it just makes sense." That combat is more "telling" or something, and therefore that means that a player who goes to it is somehow allowed to void the normal process. But that ignores the fact that nowhere in the Simple contest rules does it say that the defender is allowed to change the scope of the contest. I mean, if you argue that my allowing the players in question to use the abilities directly against each other is a violation of those rules because of the idea of the first character being the primary actor, and the target having to "resist" the attempt, then you have to agree with me. My use of the incongruous abilities in conflict are to allow a violent response to a debate, or somesuch. By a strict interpretation as you have it, if I declare a debate, then my opponent cannot draw his sword in response, because that wouldn't be an appropriate response to the debate.

This is the basic "problem" with Simple contests. One of three things has to happen. Either you limit the resistance response to only those actions that would indicate the use of an "appropriate" ability, or you allow any ability to be "appropriate", or you allow declared resistance actions to alter the nature of the conflict by whatever sense of plausibility that the players have.

Note that given the method of resolution, I personally don't find it particularly "plausible" that people can just extricate themselves from arguments by becoming violent. What I mean is that this assumes that the person putting the argument out in the first place can't control the responses of his opponent to some extent - which is exactly what the ability to argue entails. The counterexample would be to say that I can get out of a swordfight by arguing, which doesn't seem any less plausible than the first case. To me this is really a case of RPG player conditioning. Players are indoctrinated that when someone declares combat, that play is altered, time starts getting counted, and the conflict "really counts." Because in those systems, indeed the mechanics make it so that it is all that really counts.

Not so in HQ, where all contests are mechanically equal. So the narrator has a choice. Allow the traditional predilection with combat to privilege it, or break free from that paradigm by using one of the other two methods - either having attempts to do something lock the target into doing something "appropriate" to resist, or allowing anything to be appropriate.

Note that the latter proposition doesn't seem at all "awkward" to me. Given the nature of HQ resolution, you can always narrate a victory in these cases. If the debater beats the swordsman, then I just say that he spewed out his argument so quickly and convincingly that they swordsman stopped his blow just before it got to him or something. That is, what's "appropriate" depends largely on whether you see the system as a task based resolution system or a conflict based resolution system. If you go with the conflict resolution model, then you'll find that a much larger cross-section of conflicts are plausible in the HQ contest system.

But you've always been a proponent of the idea that HQ can be used to represent in-game causality in a more "crunchy" fashion. So, of course you're POV is that "inappropriate" is much more narrowly construed. I'm not surprised one bit. For me, I can look at the abilites as simply ratings that determine which character gets the advantage in any comparison, needing no in-game link to the abilities in question.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying that absolutely any ability can be used to resist any other ability. I agree that there has to be some level of plausibility for the described in-game action. But basically when I play, it comes down to the resisting player giving me an idea of how what they're saying could work from a dramatic standpoint. If the player were to say, "I parry his sword with my words," (even if playing in Glorantha where "everything is magic") I'd still disallow this as implausible. But if the player says, I want to use my debate to get him to relent before he gets to me, then I'll probably allow it, assuming that our shared imaginings make this plausible. If they were described as already touching, then I'd need a different explanation. Given the time a good argument takes, I might put an improv penalty if the attacking resister is close. Whatever it takes to make it make sense to the people playing.

Also, the result of the debate attempt is soley to put a modifier on the potential combatant. That is, if the debater's goal is to get the swordsman to stop attacking him, then we know that the swordsman attacked first. Meaning that he's been defeated in this for the nonce. But if I was trying to convince you of something (I dunno, my god is better than your god), and your resistance was to attack, and I scored a -10% result, then my success doesn't mean that you can't immediately declare an attack on me. The narrator may or may not choose to apply the -10%, but that doesn't mean that this isn't a different contest. You resisting my argument with violence is certainly different from you attacking me to kill me. So there's no violation of the "no repeat attempts" rule, and your logic about "chaining" simple contests applies here.

Obviously I have no problem with players responding "appropriately," meaning using the most obviously pertinent ability. What I find is that the games I play in, usually the resistance to a sword will be with a combat ability. Even if the player in question has a really large debate ability, they won't use it. Not because they don't think that I'll allow it, neccesarily, but because they don't want to have to go through the mental gymnastics to do it. Which is fine, it's just an option. But often I sense that the plausibility clause is used to club creative players over the head because there's some sense that they're "getting away" with something. That they're just using their best ability in all cases. But, again, that doesn't happen, even when I allow it. Because players aren't trying to win contests as much as they're trying to make their characters look interesting in them. That means that losing isn't a big deal, and that they don't just look for the best ability on the sheet every time. Instead, even if they have the inferior combat abilty, they'll pull it out, because, dammit, their character isn't afraid to back down from a fight. Or for whatever reason.

Allowing disparate abilies to be used against each other, simply means that when players have differing goals for a simple contest, that each of them can pursue them. Like they can explicitly in extended contests. So that, on the rare occasion where something like this should happen, it can be played out with a simple contest.

Now, I have no problem with the other approach, where only the instigator can have his goal met or resisted. But, for me, that means that the debator can't have his contest changed on him. If a contest is called, and it's obvious that it started as a debate, then I'll allow the debate to occur in it's entirity to occur before anybody can declare a new combat contest (which can follow on immediately if neccessary). Because to decide otherwise, that escallation to combat makes combat the contest, is to privilege combat in a way that the game doesn't intend, and is bad for play, IMO. Because it informs players that there's an inherent advantage to combat. At which point why wouldn't you play a combat monster?

Mike

Actually, this just strikes me as augment heaven. The burly Orlanthi wants to attack the Lunar diplomat. The Lunar tries to talk him out of it. So our Orlanthi gets his combat skill as his roll, and the Lunar uses his debte as his resistance. But the Lunar (assuming this isn't a case of convincing him before the first strike, but rather getting him to stop) can use his own combat skill as an augment, as he parries and dodges to try and buy himself time to be heard. The Orlanthi can throw in his Hates Lunars of course, but also his Hot-headed since that would imply he doesn't listen to reasoned arguments and such.

Narrate that blow and counter argument, bring it to a good pitch (last desperate revelation/argument/etc from the Lunar) then roll.

Win on the Orlanthi side, he beats the Lunar down and hurts him to some degree. Win on the Lunar side, the attack stops... but what do I apply those consequences to?

we'll assume for now that nobody wants to do an extended contest here

Sure.

But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

I completely agree that it has everything to do with what the group is comfortable with. Again, that's plausibility in a nutshell. Anything is plausible if everyone is willing to suspend their disbelief for whatever reason. So in all cases what "works" will be local to the game played.

My point continues to be that you can push that envelop in HQ without negative consequence. It's mostly tradition that prevents people from doing so.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Sure.

But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

Mike Holmes wrote:
Note that given the method of resolution, I personally don't find it particularly "plausible" that people can just extricate themselves from arguments by becoming violent. What I mean is that this assumes that the person putting the argument out in the first place can't control the responses of his opponent to some extent - which is exactly what the ability to argue entails. The counterexample would be to say that I can get out of a swordfight by arguing, which doesn't seem any less plausible than the first case. To me this is really a case of RPG player conditioning. Players are indoctrinated that when someone declares combat, that play is altered, time starts getting counted, and the conflict "really counts." Because in those systems, indeed the mechanics make it so that it is all that really counts.

Not so in HQ, where all contests are mechanically equal. So the narrator has a choice. Allow the traditional predilection with combat to privilege it, or break free from that paradigm by using one of the other two methods - either having attempts to do something lock the target into doing something "appropriate" to resist, or allowing anything to be appropriate.

Mike Holmes wrote: But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

I completely agree that it has everything to do with what the group is comfortable with. Again, that's plausibility in a nutshell.

soru wrote: Is the 'but' that you have dropped back to AD&D-style 'task-resolution', rather than the default HQ 'conflict-resolution'? At this point, you have not resolved the conflict, you have just determed that the task of getting the big guy to stop was successful, pretty much the same as using the intimidate skill in AD&D.

Of course, if this works for you, it works for you, but the problem I might predict would be a loss of control over pacing of the scene, as you can no longer predict and control how long it will take. Instead of the steady net decline of AP totals, it's just a sequence of independant contests until somone rolls a 'good enough' success.

Not so in HQ, where all contests are mechanically equal. So the narrator has a choice. Allow the traditional predilection with combat to privilege it, or break free from that paradigm by using one of the other two methods - either having attempts to do something lock the target into doing something "appropriate" to resist, or allowing anything to be appropriate.

Note that the latter proposition doesn't seem at all "awkward" to me. Given the nature of HQ resolution, you can always narrate a victory in these cases. If the debater beats the swordsman, then I just say that he spewed out his argument so quickly and convincingly that they swordsman stopped his blow just before it got to him or something. That is, what's "appropriate" depends largely on whether you see the system as a task based resolution system or a conflict based resolution system. If you go with the conflict resolution model, then you'll find that a much larger cross-section of conflicts are plausible in the HQ contest system.

buserian wrote:
In a seminar one time, someone (Greg Stafford?) talked about a barbarian warrior attacking a Kralori master of the Tea Ceremony.

Yeah, that's going to have to remain opinion. Because in my game I would allow the guy with Tea Ceremony to use it to defend against the troll with the description that Buserian gave. I mean, if the player said, "I use the grace that I learned in the tea ceremony to perform some maneuvers from it in order to dodge the vile creature's attacks." I'd probably allow it. Actually I don't often even give improv mods in a situation like this (or ever). The only time I give improv mods is if the player throws the ability at me "cold" without saying something like the above, and just expects me to understand what he's trying to do. It all depends on how easily I can envision it. And with even a slight help from the player, I can usually envision anything.

Right now the idea of the tea ceremony guy doing his "moves" in order to dodge the troll is going through my mind. And I'm loving it.

But that's just my opinion. My point is that I don't think there's any "danger" here, but that it just has to suit the players playing. Examples like this are a good thing, IMO, because they allow players to realize what the potential for this is like overall - so they can stretch out to their own group's limits, whatever those should turn out to be.

The people I tend to play with? They don't have much in the way of limits like this at all, as it happens. As long as the resulting narration is cool, they're down with comparing any apple to any orange.

Mike

The GM should never tell the player that his character cant defend with a specific ability - even tea ceremony. If the GM refused to allow the tea ceremony as a defense he would be starting down a slippery slope where he is effectively deciding what the character does rather than the player getting to decide.

Rather the GM should (as Mikes description shows) get the player to first explain what he is doing, and then agree what this means in terms of abilities and improvisational/situaltional modifiers - but only rejecting abilities if they dont relate to what was described.

By getting the description first everything else follows since the player has just established the connection.

What I find quite difficult is when a player just says 'I will augment with Navigate By The Stars (say) for +4' with no explanation of how this would play out. I am then forced to ask why its relevant, get an explanation from the player and have to argue about whether its right etc. All of which spoils the flow by making us focus on rules and leaves an unpleasant taste of GM pickyness in my mouth. When the player establishes what hes doing first and then adds 'thats my Navigate By Starts by the way which should be a +4' I can just grunt 'yea' most of the time and theres is (subjectively at least) less sordid bean counting.

In fact - I've only just realised - Sordid Bean Counting (tm) is the common factor for those aspects of HQ that I am struggling with. For example


* an unseemly scrabble to name check every skill on the sheet for an augment bonus


* naming a (high ranking) skill and ability number rather than describing the characters action

All that said though, personally I would give a modifier against using tea ceremony as a combat defense if the player were arguing that his grace at tea ceremony would allow him to dodge and trap the aggressor. From the example the barbarians attack appears to be a given and the player is arguing that tea ceremony is inately about having good coordination under pressure, fast reactions, skill at predicting another, etc etc. To me it is blatently not principly about these things. If the player were instead arguing that grace and coordination were an aspect of tea ceremony I would be willing to go with it - but that implies a modifier to me.

So Simon Hibbs is IMO oversimplifying thing to say

The problem is that some people incorrectly deduce from this that if you're wantering down a path and get ambushed by a Troll, you can use Tea Ceremony for defence. You can't, because you're not doing a Tea Ceremony.

KingOfFarPoint wrote: The GM should never tell the player that his character cant defend with a specific ability - even tea ceremony. If the GM refused to allow the tea ceremony as a defense he would be starting down a slippery slope where he is effectively deciding what the character does rather than the player getting to decide.

Rather the GM should (as Mikes description shows) get the player to first explain what he is doing, and then agree what this means in terms of abilities and improvisational/situaltional modifiers - but only rejecting abilities if they dont relate to what was described.

In fact - I've only just realised - Sordid Bean Counting (tm) is the common factor for those aspects of HQ that I am struggling with. For example


* an unseemly scrabble to name check every skill on the sheet for an augment bonus


* naming a (high ranking) skill and ability number rather than describing the characters action

All that said though, personally I would give a modifier against using tea ceremony as a combat defense if the player were arguing that his grace at tea ceremony would allow him to dodge and trap the aggressor. From the example the barbarians attack appears to be a given and the player is arguing that tea ceremony is inately about having good coordination under pressure, fast reactions, skill at predicting another, etc etc. To me it is blatently not principly about these things. If the player were instead arguing that grace and coordination were an aspect of tea ceremony I would be willing to go with it - but that implies a modifier to me.