Hi all

On monday we played Heroquest, I as GM.  One of my players characters had a spear in his hand, was 20 feet away from a guy he wanted to attack before he could attack this poor little old lady (another players character). He thought it would be really cool to throw the spear to skewer his foe, until of course he saw he didn't have a javelin skill. So in true truncated non fun way said, oh well I suppose I had better run up and hit him. You know what I said, fuck that, just use your skill with the spear, its less than 10 feet anyway! The players really appreciated that ruling and the game flowed once again.

The more I get into a more narratavist mindset, the more inclined I am to chuck out what I call guff, you know the mechanics and petty rules that just fog up the play. Or am I misguided.

Regards
Rob

Hiya,

As I see it, you applied the rules, rather than ignored them. It was a spear. He had the spear ability. He used it.

It's not you said, "Oh, you miss" or whatever based on what you wanted as a GM. Nor is like he was throwing, for instance, a kitten or something.

Best,
Ron

Does HeroQuest have rules for ranged thrown weapons and specialized skills for throwing as opposed to jabbing (I'll leave the historical dissertation about how a spear was 'really' used out, here)?  I mean, this is the one where you make up your own stats, right?

-- Josh, HeroQuest virgin

Josh,

In HQ you make up abilities, yes, but they tend to follow the example abilities given in terms of breadth. And to that extent, characters do usually have different abilities for throwing a weapon than for using it in HTH combat. But Rons' right, Rob used the rules and just doesn't realize it apparently. That is, there's also a rule in HQ called the "improvisational modifier" rule that says that if you use an ability that's not quite the most appropriate ability for the situation in question that you apply a penalty to the ability. So, essentially, on every contest you're applying this decision-making step to decide if an improv mod applies.

Rob decided that in the situation in question that no improv mod applied. So he was using the rules precisely as written. I'd have given it a -3 penalty - but that's just me who likes to fiddle with such things. There's nothing in the rules that would preclude the decision that Rob came up with. Heck, there's nothing saying that you have to give a -20 (or autofail) improv mod to use your oratory ability to fly to the moon. It's all based on what the narrator feels is good for play.

Hero Quest is as powerful a system as it is precisely because it requires narrator judgment on this sort of matter instead of relying on charts or something where his opinion doesn't come into play.

Mike

It should be noted I think though that this is not changing or abondoning the rules of the game, rather making a judgement which is what the Judge / GM is there to do. I think that people may have seen before text that implies (or outright states) that if you do not like the rules or they are hampering your fun, then you should change or abondon the rules in favor of what you want to do. In my opinion that sort of behavior tends to lead to a breakdown in play, eventually. It is one thing to modify a rule set (which may have been the intent of those who put such sentences in their game manual text,) and quite another to play more or less at whim to the predominant personality(ies) at the table.

I would not think this is a Nar only phenomena though. Using a football example, the adage that Holding could be called on every day is based in some fact but the fact that the Refs choose to only call the obvious Holds, is a decision to put the flow of the game over nitpicking penalties. Yet football is highly competitive and highly structured. Technically its "cheating" but I think most people consider it good Referee skills.

Sean

You seem to be kinda back and forth, there, Sean.

In Hero Quest, there is a rule called Maximum Game Fun, which explicitly authorizes the GM to do this sort of thing (though some people seem to believe it's only meant to apply to setting and not rules). That is using judgment to decide on how to apply the rules. I've said this before, vocally, if that's what MGF means, then it's the one rule in HQ that I'd most strenuously suggest changing.

Because HQ is well designed, it can be played without the Narrator having to alter the rules ever. I know, I've played going on 200 sessions of the game, and never once have I had to go outside the rules set we agreed to play in order to have fun with the game. Not once.

If, in fact, Rob had been going outside the rules, I'd have told him that I thought it was a bad move. It's precisely because HQ allows leeway in the case in question and the rules are that this is a Narrator call that the game works as written without the need for some "golden rule" like this.

Mike

Hi

I can now see what you guys are saying. For the benefit of ret-fit we could say He took an improv off his spear of -10 of set by the +10 point blank range. Job done.

Thanks guys.

Regards
Rob

No, see, it's only a +7 for Point Blank range...

Just kidding. But it makes a point. First, don't make justifications like this - because to be consistent, then, next time you're going to have to give the players with "Throw Spear" a +10 when they're at that range.

Here's the key. The modifiers aren't based on some sort of in-game determination of percentage chances of success based on range to target and the like. That's not the reasoning you should be using. The reasoning should be more like "it just seemed to make sense to me that way." That is, the modifiers are communications between players saying things about the use of the ability.

For example, if I give a -3 this rather nominal adjustment is me saying to the player, "Usually we divide up abilities into ranged ones and non-ranged ones. As such, your use here should be considered somewhat non-standard, so that there remains a reason for haivng ranged and non-ranged abilities. Which to me, for example, is to thematically speak to whether or not the character is more used to fighting up close and personal, or at range, which are psychologically very different things. That said, in this case, your character is so close that he probably should be able to use his ability unmodified since about the only difference between this and a normal hand to hand attack is that he's going to be letting go of the weapon. In fact, this is balanced by the fact that he's essentially disarming himself, and that an early attack is probably a good tactic. To say nothing of the fact that it's really a metagame concern. So I don't see any real reason for us to get all wrapped up in coming up with some big mod. But the point about wanting to have distinct rangeed and non-ranged modifiers stands. So the -3 is me telling you that."

See how much easier it is to just say "I'm going to give you a -3 for this." Yeah, that doesn't really imply the huge paragraph of stuff above directly. But what happens is that over time, and with some OOC discussion out of play when it's not intterrupting the action, what you get is an emergent community standard about what abilities can and cannot be used for. Players take part in this process too. "I suppose I'll take a -5 or so for using that?" or "It's 13W minus the inevitable improv mod that you're going to throw in there." Basically these are signals from the player saying "in this situation, improv mods make sense." Taken as a whole, the players all get a sense of what the standards are for the local game group.

Which is to say that the game system itself quite intentionally gives no automatic standard, simply a section in the book on how to communicate, essentially, with improv mods (-5 means it's slightly inappropriate, -10 means substantially inappropriate, etc).

So, looking at it very closely, what you've done with your ruling is not just to indicate something about the particular case in question, but it becomes a precedent for the entire community standard going forward (since it seems that the group liked what you did, right?). Saying something like "When an ability does overlap another, but is used in a situation where their uses are closely related, that's completely OK, and you won't get any improv mod, therefore." As you continue to make such adjudications, you form the standards for what abilities are "appropriate" for what sort of situations for your group.

This is a key feature to HQ and how having player invented abilities works. Similar in many ways to the interaction between the legislative and judiciary branches of government and how that creates an interpretation of intent of law in society (at least in the US).

Mike

Hopefully I’m not derailing anything here, as I’ve waited a few days to make sure this wouldn’t interfere with any current dialogues.

Hey Rob,

Lamorak33 wrote: On monday we played Heroquest, I as GM.  One of my Players characters had a spear in his hand, was 20 feet away from a guy he wanted to attack before he could attack this poor little old lady (another Players character). He thought it would be really cool to throw the spear to skewer his foe, until of course he saw he didn't have a javelin skill. So in true truncated non fun way said, oh well I suppose I had better run up and hit him. You know what I said, fuck that, just use your skill with the spear, its less than 10 feet anyway! The Players really appreciated that ruling and the game flowed once again.

Bolding added.

Mike wrote: Here's the key. The modifiers aren't based on some sort of in-game determination of percentage chances of success based on range to target and the like. That's not the reasoning you should be using. The reasoning should be more like "it just seemed to make sense to me that way." That is, the modifiers are communications between Players saying things about the use of the ability.

Emphasis added.

Mike wrote: See how much easier it is to just say "I'm going to give you a -3 for this." Yeah, that doesn't really imply the huge paragraph of stuff above directly. But what happens is that over time, and with some OOC discussion out of play when it's not intterrupting the action, what you get is an emergent community standard about what abilities can and cannot be used for. Players take part in this process too. "I suppose I'll take a -5 or so for using that?" or "It's 13W minus the inevitable improv mod that you're going to throw in there." Basically these are signals from the Player saying "in this situation, improv mods make sense." Taken as a whole, the Players all get a sense of what the standards are for the local game group.

Mike wrote: So, looking at it very closely, what you've done with your ruling is not just to indicate something about the particular case in question, but it becomes a precedent for the entire community standard going forward (since it seems that the group liked what you did, right?). Saying something like "When an ability does overlap another, but is used in a situation where their uses are closely related, that's completely OK, and you won't get any improv mod, therefore." As you continue to make such adjudications, you form the standards for what abilities are "appropriate" for what sort of situations for your group.

Emphasis added.

Well, it's your term, Jay, but I think you're misreading and that you might not want to associate bricolage with what I'm saying. Because if you do, then bricolage is a narrativism technique as well as a sim technique. What I mean is that in emphasizing in red the portion that you have, you're de-emphasizing the more important part which is that the players are ignoring in-game causality arguments.

Basically I could have put it better, but "it just seemed to make sense that way" is a broad statement. And it could mean, "In drama things tend to come out this way, so I'm going to adjudicate in a way that's dramatic and has nothing to do with what the world is like, particularly." On the other hand it could mean, "It's not plausbible that he couldn't use the ability effectively," too. We really don't know what it means for sure.

What we do know, however, is that this could be used for narrativism. More to the point, in the games I play it always is. Note that even plausibility arguments that are about in-game situation and such do not neccessarily make the CA simulationism. This is a common mistake in identification that exploration doesn't occur in narrativism. I'd call my games exploration-heavy narrativism (hybrid, if you will). But still easily identified as narrativism.

As part of the overall system, HQ best supports narrativism.

Further, I won't get into the whole "what's a mechanism" debate again, but it'll have to suffice to say that the phenomenon I'm talking about in HQ is firmly rooted in the rules and processes of play. That is, there is absolutely no "ignoring" the instructions of play or mechanics in any way with this sort of play of HQ. That's what Ron and I are getting at entirely here. So this seems to contradict other things you've said about what makes for sim and bricolage elsewhere - that the mechanisms are to be discarded when they don't match "what makes sense to me." This is absolutely not what happens in Hero Quest. As I've said elsewhere in well over 100 sessions of HQ play so far that I've been involved in, I've never once had to resort to not using the rules of the system, nor seen one case where anyone else who did so benefited the game by doing so.

Which means one of two things, Jay. Either Bricolage is not sim specific in any way, or the rules systems that your group uses to play are not really supportive of your style of play. I mean here we have a system where there are no mechanics that are set aside to improve play ever, and it apparently does what you want.

Mike

Hey Mike,

Mike wrote: … What I mean is that in emphasizing in red the portion that you have, you're de-emphasizing the more important part which is that the Players are ignoring in-game causality arguments.

Basically I could have put it better, but "it just seemed to make sense that way" is a broad statement. And it could mean, "In drama things tend to come out this way, so I'm going to adjudicate in a way that's dramatic and has nothing to do with what the world is like, particularly." On the other hand it could mean, "It's not plausbible that he couldn't use the ability effectively," too. We really don't know what it means for sure.

clehrich wrote: Let’s set up the analogy.  I’ll use some Big Model terms, because they’re so useful, but this really isn’t quite a Big Model theory; it applies without respect to CA, for the nonce anyway.

So everything described by the Big Model, with the notable exceptions of CA and Social Contract, is a concrete thing.  A Technique, for example, might be likened to an iron: it can be used in various ways, in various contexts, to do a range of things, but it cannot be used at all times to do absolutely anything at all.  Remember that Setting and Character are also elements of the Big Model, and are perhaps the most obvious “things” and sets of things.  But any Mechanic, let’s say a way of resolving bullet to-hit probabilities, is also such a thing: it does something, it is applicable in a range of ways and situations, and yet it cannot do everything nor be applied always.

Consider gaming as a process, the way we usually do.  When a particular situation (not capitalized) arises, we need to decide how to resolve it.  And so we interrogate our shed (the total game system) of things to decide what is appropriate.  Maybe we decide that although this is an arrow being fired, the best way to resolve its to-hit probability is to apply the bullet system, but we have to make some modifications because arrows are not bullets.  The bullet system has now changed, ever so slightly: every time we use it to resolve bullet to-hits in the future, it is a specific application that we have retained, of what is now a larger and slightly differently constructed mechanism.

Now we might eventually decide that this mechanism is so clever and so useful that we want it to apply to any ranged combat.  But the problem is, maybe laser guns don’t work the same way, so we cannot simply apply it directly.  One way to do this would be to construct a completely new system, from first principles, to handle laser guns.  In play, as opposed to design, we find this practically a pain in the ass; in design, we may find it aesthetically annoying, because it seems more elegant to have one Mechanic rather than a zillion different ones.  Now in design, which is nearer the engineering end of things, we may just go back to the drawing board and invent a whole new general to-hit system.  But in play, we don’t want to stop and do this, because as I say it’s a pain, and it distracts from what was the point of all of this, which was to figure out whether Dave’s laser shot did indeed take out Big Fred’s kneecap.  So we use the good old-fashioned chewing-gum-and-twine method: we adapt the projectile to-hit system to apply to energy weapons.  And maybe we announce, “Okay, so the first two steps are the same always, but from now on in the third step projectile combat goes on table A, which we already were using, and energy combat goes on table B, which is just like table A except without lines 1-3 and 12, which leaves 8 options instead of 12 so roll a d8 instead of a d12.”

I’m not going to ramble on here.  I hope it’s clear why we can treat both Mechanics and the imagined objects of SIS (characters, weapons, monsters, etc.)  as concrete things in the sense of bricolage, and have some practical sense of what that entails directly in play.

Red emphasis added.

Mike wrote: What we do know, however, is that this could be used for narrativism. More to the point, in the games I play it always is. Note that even plausibility arguments that are about in-game situation and such do not neccessarily make the CA simulationism.

Mike wrote: Further, I won't get into the whole "what's a mechanism" debate again, but it'll have to suffice to say that the phenomenon I'm talking about in HQ is firmly rooted in the rules and processes of play. That is, there is absolutely no "ignoring" the instructions of play or mechanics in any way with this sort of play of HQ.

Mike wrote: So this seems to contradict other things you've said about what makes for sim and bricolage elsewhere - that the mechanisms are to be discarded when they don't match "what makes sense to me."

clehrich wrote: You are allowed to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate your objects, but you cannot undo that…

Mike wrote: Which means one of two things, Jay. Either Bricolage is not sim specific in any way, or the rules systems that your group uses to play are not really supportive of your style of play.

Mike wrote: I mean here we have a system where there are no mechanics that are set aside to improve play ever, and it apparently does what you want.

Mike wrote: Further, I won't get into the whole "what's a mechanism" debate again, but it'll have to suffice to say that the phenomenon I'm talking about in HQ is firmly rooted in the rules and processes of play. That is, there is absolutely no "ignoring" the instructions of play or mechanics in any way with this sort of play of HQ.

That indeed may be your experience, and you are truly blessed in that you’ve never had to make such a call, but obviously that is not a universal condition as evidenced by the very existence of this thread.  The above GM had to make a call about something that the mechanics simply did not cover – in essence he adapted a “rule” to cover something that it apparently was never intended to cover.  And it worked perfectly.  The game quickly resumed, but not only did the game speedily resume but the Players were jazzed by the proffered solution.  It did exactly what it needed to do – and the methodology employed was bricolage.

However, I am somewhat flabbergasted by the assertion that, “there is absolutely no ‘ignoring’ the instructions of play or mechanics in any way…”  Since when did the rules or mechanics gain the ability to enforce themselves upon the Players?  You realize your assertion invalidates the Lumpley Principle as well as the notion of drift?

Mike wrote: So this seems to contradict other things you've said about what makes for sim and bricolage elsewhere - that the mechanisms are to be discarded when they don't match "what makes sense to me."

I’m not following you here.  I’ve never argued that mechanisms are to be discarded outright, though they can be modified, heavily if need be, by the guiding notion of “what makes sense to everyone at the table.”

The key with Sim isn’t incoherence but deliberate ambiguity in the mechanics as well as the SIS.  It is up to the Players to fill in the blanks, as it were, through Exploration using the source material as the guiding aesthetic!

Again, I’m not following your logic.  I’m not saying your wrong, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how you came to these two conclusions.  Not only is bricolage the Priority of play in Sim, it is the very process by which Theme or the winning Strategy is created.  IOW Exploration != bricolage, but the process of expressing CA into the SIS is bricolage in action.  CA cannot be expressed without bricolage.

Mike wrote: I mean here we have a system where there are no mechanics that are set aside to improve play ever, and it apparently does what you want.

I’m confused.  Are you referring to the game I play in?