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 Holmes wrote: 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.

HeroQuest, p. 190 wrote: You will find yourself in many situations where your story will be interesting precisely because someone breaks the rules …

HeroQuest, p. 190 wrote: … 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.

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.

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

soru wrote: your way is the only way to run HQ

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Brand_Robins wrote:
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?

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

Peter Nordstrand wrote: ...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.

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.

Peter Nordstrand wrote: Scott,

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote:
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 Holmes wrote:
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.'

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.

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?

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 wrote:
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.

That sounds much more like the way that I play than the way I interpret Mike as playing. I think you are reading way too much into the word 'realism'.

What it comes down to is, when your players bring out the 'seal of high office', are villagers awed and impressed, guards deferential, local mandarins cooperative? Or is it just a worthless token that noone respects, but somehow still has an effect, for out-of-world 'story' reasons?

If a knowledgable sword scholar sees the two characters fighting together, would they be impressed at their coordination and instinctive knowledge of what each other was going to do next (but perhaps know that that still wouldn't be enough to beat the Liu Xen in a straight fight)? Or would they not be able to tell a diference in the way they fought apart or together, it would just happen to be the case that they were more likely to win together than apart.

Or, at the most basic but exactly equivalent level, if you line up two characters with different tall ratings side by side, which would be seen as taller?

The first approach is the realist interpretation for character abilities, in-game perceptions and descriptions generally match what's written on the character sheets (but not, necessarily, in-contest calculated abilities after augmentation and use of hp - you may patch up one patient as well as a paramedic would have, that doesn't mean you were moving as skillfully and calmly as a paramedic would be expected to).

Contrast it with hero points, which just about nobody interprets as something characters know about, or can plan for (although I am sure that would be an equally valid reading of the rules, as it it not explicitly ruled out anywhere). I am sure in the way most people play, there is no magical ability that can detect, compare, boost or drain hero point pools.

Mike, if I have followed his thinking correctly, treats ability scores in the same way that most people treat hero points. So unless you are doing that too, and your examples suggest you are not, then I honestly think you are not playing Forgequest in the way he has explained it.

But perhaps I am wrong.

soru

soru wrote: That sounds much more like the way that I play than the way I interpret Mike as playing. I think you are reading way too much into the word 'realism'.

What it comes down to is, when your players bring out the 'seal of high office', are villagers awed and impressed, guards deferential, local mandarins cooperative? Or is it just a worthless token that noone respects, but somehow still has an effect, for out-of-world 'story' reasons?

Or, at the most basic but exactly equivalent level, if you line up two characters with different tall ratings side by side, which would be seen as taller?

Mike, if I have followed his thinking correctly, treats ability scores in the same way that most people treat hero points. So unless you are doing that too, and your examples suggest you are not, then I honestly think you are not playing Forgequest in the way he has explained it.

I probably will start that new thread, but first:

This is a very sane perception: my character is a good surgeon because he's had years of experience and a office in a high academy, not because he happens to know that his trait is 5w2. The characters do not know about traits, they know about what happens in-game.

soru wrote:
In this view, traits are a way of presenting information about the world, and characters know about the world they are in, including a lot of things that never happenned in-play.

But the second would suggest he still only has the potential to be a good surgeon, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If he botches his first few operations, he is not a good surgeon suffering from a curse, crisis of confidence or simple run of bad luck, but an incompetent.

Eero,

Soru does not want to understand. He probably feels threatened by the idea that some people have different preferences than he has. He blatantly ignores both common decency andf Forum policies. He does no respond to questions. The only thing he has accomplished is to destroy the topic, twist the purpose of my original post into something unrecognizable. He seems very afraid. It strikes me as quite unhealthy, actually.

I strongly dounbt that there is any point in ever talking to him again.

[EDIT: One more thing: I have stopped watching this topic.]

I don't understand the acrimony that this topic causes. Not my thread (does't seem to be anyone's anymore), but all I can say is that it would do to take the personal judgements out of the thread.

FWIW, #5 Does not say that one has to divorce ability ratings from in-game levels of competence to achieve the style of play that I use certainly, and I doubt anyone else uses. I have said that repeatedly before. The concept of delinking the two is supposed to be an exercise for the mind which has, IMO, a certain outcome. Yes it's a deconstruction, and yes, it probably confuses the hell out of some people. I'm not particularly concerned. Because for those people, they can, as I've said, just ignore #5 (or any of the other heresies). Again, these are just my own interpretations, and I if only a few people get what I'm talking about - and they have - then I think it's worthwhile to state.

The reason that I've said that I don't want to discuss the "what we get from it," which seems to be the sticking point here, is because I think that it's something very esoteric that I've tried very hard already to elucidate as well as I can. If I haven't succeeded before, then I doubt that I will on another try. So I'm not particularly inclined to try. Given that there's no reason for anyone to even think about #5 if they don't want to, I don't see this as problematic.

Now, I've been complicit in going off on this tangent - it seemed that the thread was about the article in general, but I think Peter may have had the more focused intention of discussing the initial issue about #10. So I'm going to start a new thread here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=150138

Further, if Soru, or anyone else wants to start a thread about #5 specifically, that's fine, too. Despite my reluctance to talk about it, I will try again if people really want me to do so - I feel that it would be dishonest not to do so if asked. I know that doesn't sound enthusiastic, but that's the best I can muster for a point that I think has really been overworked.

Mike

Peter Nordstrand wrote:
Soru does not want to understand. He probably feels threatened by the idea that some people have different preferences than he has. He blatantly ignores both common decency andf Forum policies. He does no respond to questions. The only thing he has accomplished is to destroy the topic, twist the purpose of my original post into something unrecognizable. He seems very afraid. It strikes me as quite unhealthy, actually.

Gareth,

I was quite upset when I wrote that post. I acknowledge that I have no idea what soru's personal motivations are. I am not qualified to make statements about his health, either. My post was out of line.

Name-calling, personal slander and the use of invectives has no place here, whether it comes from me, from you, or anybody else.

Back to topic, folks.

Best,
Ron