During descriptions of the HQ system it is often mentioned that HQ deals with Nar. situations very well. Occasionally, as a counter point to that statement, it will be claimed that HQ can also 'do' Sim. well too. Unfortunately this claim is not backed up with any form of evidence, explanation, or example.

Is it true? If so, how does it work? And are there any examples out there for those us who just don't 'see' it can be directed to?

Thanks,

- John

This is my understanding of the idea: the archetypal sim game (eg RQ) attempts to simulate through exhaustive rules. The argument goes that HQ can do simulation by adjusting interpretation of results. Arguably, this is what one does even in GURPS and other complex simulations.

HQ's simple mechanics are paradoxically often 'realistic'; eg it has been pointed out that a straight bonus for a weapon is realistic because often attacks are defensive and defence aggressive in real combat. The contest system also produces real, lasting effects of defeat for all possible situations.

The reward system helps to simulate any milieu in which human interaction is important. Why do you care about your family? It helps when you get a bonus for caring. HQ characters can't afford to be generic wandering psychopaths; they must be Alexanders or Napoleons if they want ultimate power. More simulatory in terms of historical characters, certainly.

Well, I'm sure Brand will be by soon to talk about the various conversions out there, but to get the engine primed:

HeroQuest does genre-sim very well, thanks to the modularity of its chargen. You can, with a very minor change to the keywords, simulate any number of genres. I know of Shadowrun conversions, Star Wars conversions, tentative Exalted conversions, etc. - all of them (with the possible exception of Exalted) very much captured the theme and mood of the game-worlds in question.

As for (er, I don't know if there's a Forge term for it...) "world-sim" HeroQuest does that, too, for certain values of simulation. HeroQuest pulls back and does a sort of "big picture" Sim: rather than try to quantify to the ounce how many pounds a strong man can lift, it acknowledges that everyone has bad days, or favorable circumstances, and can thus exceed or fail to meet expectations. Rather than STR 18, and you can lift X pounds any time you try, you have a Strong ability and you are "opposed" by the world. I also think that by focusing on the realities of how a community can support or hinder you, and the social obligations really do take time from the "fun" things you want to do, it models human social structures pretty well, too.

HeroQuest isn't Sim for the folks who absolutely want to measure the effects of a mace hit to the knee, or have a chart that will objectively tell you the weather in Sog City. But it's Sim enough for someone looking to tell a story that feels like a story, and not necessarily a newspaper.

Good points so far.

The other way that HQ does "sim" is by giving a unified core mechanic that allows for narrators and players to work together to determine what is realistic and what isn't. By deciding together how much of a penalty a spear has against a sword in a narrow hallway, the group sets the tone of realism and makes a joint world where they can all see the same things having the same effects for the same reasons.

This goes the opposite direction of the way standard sim games work, where the game engine tries to give you lists and charts of every modifier in order to make something realistic. This can work, but it can also lead to situations in which the game rules tell us one thing about realism and our brains tell us another. I think we've all seen some "water runs uphill" rules in games, and so know that even the most comprehensive lists of charts and tables will not only not cover every situation, but may actually make some of them less realistic rather than more.

By putting control of the level of correctness and realism into the shared field of player-GM control, rather than into the hands of a book written by someone who's grasp of physics may be shaky in the first place, HQ lets you do Sim by making it realistic to your expectations.

I'd like to add that the rules regarding development of various kinds of magical abilities seem very simulationsist to me.

Specifically, the ideas of concentration and misapplied worship bring the way the worls if supposed to be and apply it to character improvement in a very specific way. In my game, which is tending towards more narrativist style, we're basically ignoring all that and using the 'default' magic ability cost, on the grounds that we're interested in what's happening to our characters, not whether they happen to be worshipping a great spirit as a god.

I've played and run HeroQuest for the past year or so. From my experience, I can say, without threat of equivocation, that HQ does Sim. Mike's ShadowWorld game (run with the HeroQuest system) switches back-and-forth between Sim and Narr play seamlessly (although I wouldn't say that the Narr play is all that explicit). Now, here's why I propose HQ is capable of doing such:

HQ does Narr play well because HQ quantifies elements of a character (relationships, beliefs, etc.) that are at the heart of conflicts in Narrative play. It also assists Narrators (HQ's terminology, not mine) because players quantify a character's abilities based on what they want out of play with said characters. A Narrator that focuses on intellectual contests with a player who rated his character's Battle Axe fighting at 2w and took the flaw "Hot Tempered" at 1w is seriously out of touch. Just follow the numbers and HQ, IMO, makes Narr play possible.

Additionally, HQ does Sim play well because it allows for one thing that almost every other RPG out there pretty much leaves out. It quantifies culture. Culture in HeroQuest, more than in any other system I've played, is part of the rules.

In D&D, there are blocks of text that say "Dwarves don't trust elves". There might even be articles in magazines like Dragon that help GMs incorporate (or remove) elements such as this in play, even assigning Charisma bonuses or whatnot. But in HeroQuest, Dwarves would have a "Mistrust of Elves" at 5w or 15w or 2w2, etc.

And that would affect every interaction said Dwarf would have with an Elf in play.

In this way, I think HQ offers a more immersive Sim than most other RPGs. Sure, a game like Aftermath (which actually used cosines and sines in some of its physics-based mechanics) might give me an idea of what the effect of throwing a hand-grenade into a 10x10 room might be. But, outside of modelling physics, the world remains on paper. If my mutant foot-soldier doesn't like other mutants, it's pretty much up to me to role-play that. There's certainly no rule stating I have to.

In HeroQuest, I see what it's actually like to be a character from a particular culture. I experience the prejudices, beliefs and trials of my chosen culture. IMO, what HQ lacks in scientific mimicry is more than made up for by how it facilitates cultural immersion.

In D&D, you'll play an Elf. Your arrows will act plausibly (or not) according to whatever rules are in place.

In HeroQuest, you'll actually be an Elf. You'll experience the culture of your chosen race precisely because that is what is recorded on paper when a character is created. While HQ may not help you detail the flying arc of an arrow shot from a 15-lb shortbow from 20 ft., it will help you experience the story arc of a character in a given place at a given time in a fictional environment.

Another contrast would be D&D's alignment. How many of us have known players who take the alignment "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil" only to roleplay said alignment when it's convenient for their particular cause? Such characters use their alignment as a rationalization to do whatever it is they wanted to do to begin with and patently ignore said alignment when it is convenient to them. It is up to the GM to be the "Group Nanny" in such instances, often resulting in hurt feelings, rules arguments and whatnot. I've seen it too often in too many different groups to be persuaded that it's just an isolated occurance.

In HeroQuest, the "alignment" would act as either a bonus or a penalty. Always. There's no selective choosing when such a trait would apply or not. There's no convenient overlooking of said trait to justify a particular action.

To me, that is HQ's strength. By virtue of things being made either more difficult or easier according to one's listed abilities, HeroQuest shows us how "being Good" drives our decisions or "being Evil" taints our actions without the GM ever having to debate the nature of such forces with a player who just wants to act disruptively.

IMO, that's why my last group likely didn't care for it. They couldn't game it. They couldn't build the uber-bruiser with a 9 Intelligence and 7 Charisma and then parade around like they were Arnold Schwarzenegger with the brain of Stephen Hawking rolled up with the personality of Robin Williams. HeroQuest, by nature of its rules alone, didn't give them any loopholes to exploit or flaws to ignore. They actually had to play their characters.

A good example is in the HeroQuest CthulhuPunk mini-campaign I ran. One player wanted to play a Mindless, Brain-Eating Zombie. He leveraged his character creation such that he received the trait "Undead 5w4" and "Strong 10w" abilities, virtually assuring that there was no non-magical means of him getting killed and making him an absolute combat monster. As a zombie, though, he took (his idea) the flaws of mindless(5w), slow movement (13) and must eat brains (2w). I thought that the ratings of the flaws were quite, um, generous given the level of his other abilities.

During play, this player became frustrated because: he ran too slowly to pursue and catch victims, he found himself unable to resist eating (or attempting to eat) people he came across, he was unable to perform technical tasks (like hack into a computer or pick a magnetic lock) and he was putty in the hands of Neo-Nazi Necromancers (yep, the Kaotechia).

In essence, he was frustrated because he couldn't powergame HQ. He was frustrated because HQ (by the rules alone) put him in a position of actually playing a mindless, brain-eating zombie. Months later, the player admitted to me that he had been trying to "break" the system and became frustrated when he couldn't.

Which is something I've seen in a number of "Sim" oriented games. The over-riding desire to make a game that adheres to the "laws" of physics invariably results in a system that can be gamed, broken, manipulated and lawyered. I know. I once GM'd for a physics major.

This doesn't really happen in HeroQuest. So, while I think HQ is a wonderfull game for Narr play, it is pretty much ideal for Sim following this line of thought.

Hope that lends support to the statement that "HQ does Sim". If you need more, just let me know. I've got a number of other good examples to illustrate my point.

Scott