I ran Lacuna for my friends in the city the other night, and it was really interesting. One thing it did with it's minimal but awesome system was show me how I run games. My GMing was just sort of laid bare in front of me. And seeing my GMing this way, I think, will allow me to be more effective in other games I run if I just focus on what I learned.

I'm not sure I can describe this in a meaningful way, but this is what I had already been doing that I learned from Lacuna.

Never call for a specific roll. I never say, "He's coming at you with a knife. Roll your dodge." I say, "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?" Maybe the character counters with a knife. Maybe the character does a buttload of dodging, humiliating the attacker kung-fu movie style. Maybe the character gives the attacker a cold stare causing him to drop his knife. Situations where characters and players interact with the mechanics in this way are opportunities for players to make statements about their characters. A character who pulls out a gun and shoots an attacker is very different from a character who talks the attacker into calming down. Denying the player that choice sucks. I've had that done that to me, either by having the choice denied ("He's attacking you and talking won't work. You can just stand there and take damage if you want.") or having it effectively denied ("Okay, you can roll but it'll be at a -20 penalty and he'll get a +20 bonus since you're not defending.") and it sucks.

Now, mechanics are also a major way for players to define and create the game world. This can be done by making changes to the shared imagined space that can't be disputed ("I hate this guy. I kill him!") but also, depending on the GM's style, to create the fiction and the game world. In Lacuna, I had their Monitor (the person responsible for providing them with intelligence and equipment outside the Blue City) acting really weird. The players started making all sorts of rolls to find out more information about the Monitor. This took the Monitor from random color (which is how I intended it to be) and transformed it into an actual plot. Later, the characters happened upon a savaged corpse which they were suspected of murdering. They never tracked down the killer, investigated the cause of death or anything, so the corpse was simply a corpse. It was a prop, not a plot.

If I could remember all this in every game I run, I'd have some pretty hot games.

Now, all that said, does this make sense in terms of the Big Model? Is what I'm saying here nothing new, and if so what terminology is used for this?

It sounds like you had a good story now experience. In terms of The Big Model, who's really to say, as it was just one session, but you're on your way to narrative play. Letting the story develop through play by what the players are focusing on, rather than what the GM shoves down their throats.

You should try to introduce harder choices though, than just a corpse and hoping they'll look for clues. Try hitting them with some Bangs, that force them to make a decision. Bangs are situations that simply can't be avoided, and there's no clear right-or-wrong decision involved, preferably both outcomes should be equally bad - make the players sweat!

Sounds like you're off to a good start. Have fun with it,

Yoki

Could someone in the know analyse this Big Model-style? I don't understand the Big Model well enough to do it.

Yoki's take doesn't quite ring true for me: it doesn't sound as though we know enough about the game to say it's approaching Narrativist play.

Graham

I'm with Graham that there's not enough data. I also think the question "does it make sense in terms of the Big Model" is a red herring. What are you searching for in this thread? Is it reflection?

You describe a preference for leaving all options open for players and going with the flow. That's cool.

Graham wrote:
Could someone in the know analyse this Big Model-style? I don't understand the Big Model well enough to do it.

Yoki's take doesn't quite ring true for me: it doesn't sound as though we know enough about the game to say it's approaching Narrativist play.

Yoki,
This is my play. Not Graham's. If you need more data, feel free to ask questions. Otherwise, I have no idea what more you need to know about play.

Jasper,
I already made clear what I'm looking for. I'm looking for discussion on the methods I've outlined above. Elsewhere on the internet, I've been pointed towards Ron's description of the four authorities and that's helped get me started. My original thought was that I was saying something unique about GMing methods, but it appears that I was just, as you say, stating a preference for having the authorities distributed more even among a group rather than resting solely in my hands.

Graham,
I actually know enough about the Big Model to be dangerous and to give it ashot, but avoided describing my play in those terms during the write-up. What are you looking for here? I could give it a shot.

Bret wrote: Yoki,
This is my play. Not Graham's. If you need more data, feel free to ask questions. Otherwise, I have no idea what more you need to know about play.

Yoki, I'm frustrated because I've asked that if you need more details, ask questions and I will elaborate. Please, if you need some information from me, let me know what that information is and I will provide it. Otherwise I'm helpless here.

Hi Bret,

I don't think it works that way around. The idea is that a structure/a model already exists in your play and it's created from what you and the other participants think is important. We haven't seen enough of what's important to you guys to ask questions. If we asked questions right now, we'd be asking about stuff we think is important - that'd be pretty missplaced in analysing your play account.

I was typing up another reply while Callan posted his, he explained what I wanted to say and quite eloquently at that. It's not so much the techniques you describe as to what your focus as players are.

Guys, please consider this thread closed. Thanks.

You know, let me take that back with an apology. I started this thread, and I've just reached a point where I feel like the thread has gone afield from what I intended, and I feel like you're all the way over there and I'm all the way over here. I'm going to try to bring it back on track while fully admitting I'm not very good at discussions like this or very knowledgeable about it.

I'm not sure what information you guys think is lacking. If it's what is motivating my players, I really feel like it's not relevant. I'm looking to talk about the methods I used in terms of the Big Model and where they fit into the big picture. If you feel like the players motivations are necessary to do that, I can provide them to you, but "we need more actual play" doesn't really help me narrow down what information you need. Do you want how the players responded to the methods? Do you want to specific instances where I used these methods? Please narrow it down, because "we need more actual play" isn't a helpful request to me to provide more information.

And I apologize Jasper. I apparently was being unclear. Am I still being unclear about what I'm looking for here? If not, what is unclear?

Hmm.  I think it really helps to have a sense of who the players are, how the game session happened, and what seemed to really work or not work in terms of getting everybody's attention and enjoyment.  No detailed recaps, just sort of a capsule summary.

Especially with a game like Lacuna, which seems to be in a different genre each time it's run, it really helps to have some of the content and the context.  Don't get me wrong, I really liked your initial post, but I need more to chew on. 

Bret: The thing is that when dealing with the Big Model and Creative Agenda, the methods could fit anywhere. Creative Agenda is all about the players motivations during play, where the "methods" you've described could be a part of any of the Creative Agenda's. I think that is where the confusion is coming from. Normally when someone asks where their play falls in the Big Model, they are looking for info on a Creative Agenda, that doesn't seem to be what you are asking. If you are looking for a specific, glossary-type term to describe the methods themselves, I believe that would be "techniques"* (check the Provisional Glossary for more info). Though whether there are specific names for the techniques you are using, I really don't know. Is that what you were looking for? If so I'm sure someone with more experience in the theory side of RPing can provide you with more assistance. If not, then I'm at a loss.

*If I'm using the wrong term here, someone correct me.

The wrote:
Bret: The thing is that when dealing with the Big Model and Creative Agenda, the methods could fit anywhere. Creative Agenda is all about the players motivations during play, where the "methods" you've described could be a part of any of the Creative Agenda's.

Yes. I get the sense that Bret is more interested in names out of RPG theory for the techniques he has identified, rather than a discussion about where their play falls in relation to the Big Model.

Bret: If the above is accurate, the mention of the Big Model brought a little confusion. If I'm off base, please ignore.

I am talking about the Big Model. I am talking about the techniques I describe and where they fit into the Big Model. Names are useful, but I'm looking for a discussion on the ideas as well.

Where do these fit into the Big Model? I looked at a chart on the Wikipedia entry and saw "Techniques" and "Ephemera" as components. I'm guessing they fall under Techniques.

How do these Techniques plug into the SIS? I feel like concepts, ideas, what-have-you don't enter into the SIS until the PCs interact with them. The corpse they found could have had a complex back-story, but that back-story is not a part of the fiction of the game unless the PCs pursue it. And in this case, using mechanics cemented ideas into the SIS.

Dragon Master and Paka are right, I am not looking to have our Creative Agenda described. I don't care if we're G or N or S. If it's impossible to have this discussion without figuring that out, we can do that, but I'm skeptical. As for the play, here's a rundown:

I played with my friend Shael and his brother Devon. Shael is my friend from college. Both him and his brother seem to think I'm an awesome GM so when I visited him in NYC I ran a game for them. They enjoyed the game immensely, though Devon was very disturbed at first. He felt like he didn't have any grounding in the fiction and was confused. This was an immersive experience I was encouraging. Shael was basically unperturbed. They were not aware of the methods I was employing at all and as far as they knew I had a crazy complex back-story. They liked the mechanics and want to play again in the future. Does this help?

That could be it. Now I realize what I was missing: I didn't really read anything about an actual play session at all (hey, that's not bad or anything), instead you (Greg) told us "I prefer this technique in this situation over that technique in the same situation". It falls flat because everyone responds with "ok" and that's all of it.

Greg, your restart of the thread is way cool!
As I see it now, you played Lacuna and discovered your own preference for certain techniques. Now you're wondering whether that set of techniques dovetails strongly with either G, N, or S play, which would allow you to better communicate your preferences and enables you to focus on those games that would be most compatible with them. Am I anywhere near the mark?

Now the answers you're getting to the question above, sadly, are "it's not that simple for us to judge".

Aw hell we crossposted. Gotta run now, will read your post later.

Hey Bret.

The looply pooply goes, "system is how you decide what happens in your game. However you decide what happens, that's your system."

I used to have a thing called my mini-rant #2. It's about backstory that doesn't yet exist. I'll quote it here, from a long, long time ago:

I don't think it's fair to call them "GM secrets."  The GM can't actually know secret things, since group assent is what makes things true in the game. 

Some play styles privilege the GM's plans to the point where if the GM planned it, the players have no social contract-sanctioned grounds to withhold their assent.  Calling the GM's plans "secrets" comes from that style of play and is dangerously misleading when applied to any other.  Dangerously misleading, I say!  Think of the children!

So can we call them "GM plans" instead?  That might point to solutions, or it might not, but at least it'll be clear what we're talking about.

The corpse they found could have had a complex back-story, but that back-story is not a part of the fiction of the game unless the PCs pursue it. And in this case, using mechanics cemented ideas into the SIS.

Ok, I'm sure that if Ron were not busy with vastly more important things (like say twin newborns) he'd already be in this thread moderating pretty heavy.  So I'll act as an unofficial temporary stand in.

Guys, really appreciate your participation, but lets stay on track with what Brett's asking here.  He's asking very clearly about the Big Model...which is called that because it goes way beyond Creative Agenda and GNS.  Oh, and for those prone to using such terms as "motivation" with respect to Creative Agenda...please don't.  That way lies madness.  No part of the Big Model requires getting inside someone's head and speculating about what's going on in there.

Bret what you're asking is very easy to identify in Big Model terms.  You've hit upon those things that the Big Model labels as Techniques which exist underneath (if you like hierarchal diagrams) or within (if you like set diagrams) Creative Agenda.

Bret wrote:
Never call for a specific roll. I never say, "He's coming at you with a knife. Roll your dodge." I say, "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?"

Situations where characters and players interact with the mechanics in this way are opportunities for players to make statements about their characters. A character who pulls out a gun and shoots an attacker is very different from a character who talks the attacker into calming down. Denying the player that choice sucks.

Now, mechanics are also a major way for players to define and create the game world. This can be done by making changes to the shared imagined space that can't be disputed ("I hate this guy. I kill him!") but also, depending on the GM's style, to create the fiction and the game world. In Lacuna, I had their Monitor (the person responsible for providing them with intelligence and equipment outside the Blue City) acting really weird. The players started making all sorts of rolls to find out more information about the Monitor. This took the Monitor from random color (which is how I intended it to be) and transformed it into an actual plot. Later, the characters happened upon a savaged corpse which they were suspected of murdering. They never tracked down the killer, investigated the cause of death or anything, so the corpse was simply a corpse. It was a prop, not a plot.

Ralph, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Now, I guess I'm coming from a standpoint of "These techniques encourage fun play." Fun is an unhelpful word. Um. These techniques encouraged player and GM Exploration of Setting, Situation, Character, etc. What this brought to the game was a sense of fun as me and the players were figuring out what was going on. Having this opening up allowed for everyone to participate in participation and introduce everyone's vision to the game.

So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

NP

Bret wrote:
So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

Bret wrote:
So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

Bret wrote: Ralph, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

I really like Noclue's question (it's James, right?).

-Vincent

Thanks. Yes, its James. I keep forgetting my name doesn't show up here on its own. I really need to put it in a signature line

Guys who are apologizing: don't. I appreciate your efforts to help me out.

Ralph, that makes perfect sense. If the rolls are ability-based, but all abilities are applicable, then each character needs to make sure that they have their chance to shine whether it's through spotlight scenes or targeting rolls. It wouldn't matter so much in competitive games. In Lacuna, there was a slight issue where co-operating wasn't really spelled out. Actions were taken by one character or the other, so determining who gets to punch the baddy is informally negotiate. Which is potentially problematic.

I'm wondering if HeroQuest might deal with this the most gracefully. Granted, if I try to combat your Sword skill with my Eating skill I'll face a hefty penalty, but it is possible to elevate my Eating skill to such a high mastery that eventually I can make it happen (based on my loose understanding of HeroQuest). It's still possible here for the GM to basically put up a wall by giving you an insurmountable penalty, but it does leave you with situations where you can try to talk your way out of that charging barbarian horde, but maybe it's more likely the combat-guy will succeed. But I still like having Talky guy and Fighty guy have equal chances of getting out of the same situation, but having it mean different things in the fiction.

I guess I'm groping for a universal in a situation that depends heavily on a system's design and a group's preference.

James, that's an interesting thing I hadn't thought about, mainly because of how Lacuna works. In Lacuna, only the players roll. The GM never rolls anything. So that didn't come up as an issue. What do you see as the problem with that? Why is an NPC talking a PC out of a course of action worse than, say, that same NPC chopping the same PC in half with an axe? I think I know why.

Bret wrote:
James, that's an interesting thing I hadn't thought about, mainly because of how Lacuna works. In Lacuna, only the players roll. The GM never rolls anything. So that didn't come up as an issue. What do you see as the problem with that? Why is an NPC talking a PC out of a course of action worse than, say, that same NPC chopping the same PC in half with an axe? I think I know why.

We (the thread) have identified "Never call for a specific roll" as a technique that Bret uses. But I wonder if there's another technique, one that hasn't been mentioned yet, in addition to this. Implicit in the question "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?" is, I think, a rejection of 'initiative order'. In another game, you might say "Init 19: He's coming at you with a knife, roll to dodge [...] Init 16: Now, what do you do?". I don't actually know how Lacuna works, so I might be putting my foot in it - but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

This seems to me to be related to IIEE, to involve the freedom of the threatened character to react to the Intention or Initiation step. Are the range of possible techniques explored anywhere? For instance, in D&D (where the characters traditionally freeze at the start of a combat and take it in turns to unfreeze and act in small ways upon the fiction) there's no freedom to react (with limited exceptions, like delayed actions [part of the initiative system] and attacks of opportunity [erm]) - not even to roll to dodge! But in explicity stake-setting games, the statement "he's coming for you with a knife" is more like an invitation for the player to react by setting their own stakes.

On the other hand, maybe "Never call for a specific roll" is a technique that only works when applied to the event that jumpstarts a conflict. But I still wonder if it's possible to find a technique that applies this GM lesson in the middle of more traditional 'initiative and fine-grained actions' conflicts.

OK, this is my first ever ever post on the forge after a few years fearing it, maybe a couple years on the outskirts, and a few days or weeks thinking I understand what it's really all about. So, if this falls too far outside the scope of Bret's GMing techniques and Lacuna examples then I'd be happy to try and take this to another thread, somewhere.

On reflection, I thought it would be more useful to the thread if I asked two questions.

1. Bret, do you have examples from other systems where you ask "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?".
1a. What did you do when the written rules made this hard to do?

2. Everyone else, is there anywhere where the big model (or the whole blob of theoretical thought) touches on this issue, aside from IIEE and stake-setting?

I also thought I may be missing the point a little. So,

3. From the first post "Situations where characters and players interact with the mechanics in this way are opportunities for players to make statements about their characters.". I get this. But are other ways to provide this opportunity in different situations, such as the middle of a combat (rather than the start of a conflict)?

In a different system the actual stakes might end up being :  "OK, the petty thief is attacking me.  But I've sworn not to draw my sword except in defense of the Princess.    If I win, I manage to defeat him without compromising my vow.  If I lose, I need to draw my sword to defend myself."  Stating that someone is attacking with a knife might not be the start of the actual conflict.  DITV just has that as a raising or lowering of the stakes, right? (He attacks me with a knife: I draw my gun.  He Gives :) )

I think an important part of using the "never call for a specific roll" Technique touches on the amount of Force that a GM is using.  In games (and systems) that encourage the use of Force, "Using Less Force" as a Technique for allowing exploration of setting (or color, character, etc.) is a Technique.  In a system where the GM's abilities aer less centralized, a player using less Force than necessary doesn't do anything for the exploration, and might even harm it, by allowing their fellow players to make easier choices.

That's pretty well said, Fred.

I'm glad that Brett brought this up in regards to HQ, as that nails down a really important issue in RPGs. On the HQ rules boards, and even in the old HQ board here on the Forge, a subject would come up perennially. Basically it comes down to this question for HQ, which will hopefully be illustrative of the problem:

Does HQ intend that a contest imply the use of a particular ability to address it?

Implications aside, the text is decidedly (and perhaps intentionally) neutral on the subject. On the one hand, it's pretty clear that it's possible to use a wide range of abilities to address a situation. On the other hand, the Narrator is given the power of putting "improvisation penalties" on to the use of an ability. This, along with examples of it's use, imply that the Narrator will have a pretty clear idea of the sort of contest that he's molding, and will use the improvisational penalties to address that.

I think that this is, probably, the closest to what Laws and Stafford intend. But I also think that it's left vague so that people can tailor it to their own needs.

I've often commented on the subject that what ends up being functional is for the Narrator to use the improv penalty ability to establish a community standard for just how much one can stretch abilities to cover a particular circumstance.

For my part, when I play, I'm relatively lenient, compared to more traditional players who pick up HQ, and see the Narrator's job as doing something like what Ralph mentions in terms of providing niche protection. That is, they want to ensure that the abilities taken have unique measures of effectiveness in particular situations. Often this is done, I think, out of a worry that, otherwise, the player will always just use his highest ability.

Indeed, I'd have to agree that if you're playing HQ with any sort of traditional gam/sim bent, that players might play this way, and that you might have to resort to traditional presentation of contests such that you're basically selecting the primary ability.

It's interesting that HQ doesn't have any standard sorts of contests (combat is almost special through example, but not really). As such, any hard line enforcement of what the primary ability happens to be is pretty much arbitrary. Note the examples:

"The warrior comes at you with his axe twirling... you have only seconds to act, what's your sword ability!"

Is no more valid a priori than

"The warrior comes at you from a distance twirling his axe... you have a few seconds in which to act, do you want to talk him down?"

There's really two things going on here. The Narrator, in setting up a contest is first pitching an arena for the conflict. Arena here is a near-jargon term that I frequently use to mean the nature of the contest such that it informs what's likely to be a reasonable way to respond to the contest.

Nobody is suggesting that one be allowed to leap a chasm using their Fast Talk skill. By proposing the chasm leap, the GM is proposing a physical contest. But then the player responds, in what comes down to a negotiation regarding the nature of the contest. The player may say, "I try to call out to the people I'm chasing, and get them to come back, instead of leaping the chasm." This is a rather extreme example, but the player is essentially proposing an entire change of arena. They're not interested in the leap, they're interested in an interpersonal conflict.

Usually a proposal of slightly less audacity comes down to the player negotiating smaller measures of change. Maybe he doesn't want to leap the chasm, but wants to use his mountaineering to negotiate it with ropes. The arena still involves the chasm obstacle this way, but the method of dealing with the obstacle has changed, if it's accepted.

Very interestingly (at least to me) is that HQ's extended contest mechanic specifically allows for the player to change goals. This, very often, entails a change in arena. If you're losing a fight, where the arena is armed combat, you can attempt to flee, which changes the arena to a foot race.

In fact this is somewhat vague in the rules as well (I wrote an essay on this subject, I can't recall where). If I change my goal, or if my goal is perpendicular to that of my opponent, can I force him into another arena? And, if so, how often? It seems pretty dramatically appropriate to allow a character to throw jibes at an opponent with a goal of making him leave, ashamed, even while he throws blows at you. It may not even be realistic, but it's certainly a genre convention to allow swashbucklers to do just this sort of thing.

But if you allow this... is the contest permanently shifted to the verbal arena?

What I typically do is say that on the player's round, he dictates the arena, and on the opponent's round, we select an arena that plays into their strengths. So on my round as narrator, the beligerent swordsman gets to fight, forcing you to use some sort of appropriate physical ability to resist. On your round, you're free to throw barbs, forcing him to use some appropriate verbal talent to respond.

The book doesn't indicate that this is the standard way to play, but it seems to work for me, an doesn't contradict the book that I can think of. It's a pretty effective technique.

But you'll note that I'm not letting the player entirely off the hook. I'm not allowing him to negotiate the contest to become entirely verbal in this case. What's interesting, too, is that I never have to do so.

It's an odd fact that a way to stop a player from trying to win is to just allow them to win.

That Zen moment I put out there, because the mode of play that I use with people means that players are not out to figure out how to win contests. We don't challenge them to do so, and so they don't try. Instead the players are looking at each contest as a way to explore the character.

This is, I think, the optimal outcome for the technique that you're using. If, as Ralph says, the game is about players building character effectiveness, and each character having specialized versions of effectiveness, then allowing players free reign in negotiating arenas doesn't work well. Because, as we've said, they'll always try to negotiate every contest into their strong suit. Because they want to win, not to explore their character.

If, on the other hand, the style of play becomes about character exploration, then negotiation subtextually says to the player, "Let's talk about what's interesting to explore with your character, since it would be all too easy for you to play optimally."

So it's important to note that it's more precise to say of how I use this technique that it's part of an overall raft of techniques that support character explorative play. This play tends to be on the narrativism side (people are using "narrative" here incorrectly again), but often smells pretty simmy.

As such, players tend to simply accept my proffered arenas to explore. We haven't done a fight for this character... cool, time to do the fight.

Note that this is even if the character is bad at something. In fact, perhaps especially. Players seem to love looking at their character sheet and announce, "My character seems singularly unable to address this contest... let's go with Default 6."

Now that's learning something about a character... what they really do not know how to do.

I'll also frequently drop in what I think of as "Mundane" contests, to explore the character that way. The classic example I recall is having characters do a "grooming contest" before a party to get a variable augment to use in social contests there. It's fascinating to learn that most fantasy characters don't have any understanding of grooming. Which made the party take on a whole new feel, once they arrived with their typically dishevelled, or mangled attempt to groom, appearances.

That's pretty simmy stuff right there... it may be Nar on some very subtle level, but hard to discern. I typically use that stuff as build-up to more important contests that have more thematic impact, to color those events and randomize them up a bit.

The point being that the players don't seem to care if their characters are well suited to a contest, but in fact are invested in discovering just how well suited their characters are to a particular contest.

So, interestingly, when I use the technique that allows players to alter the arena (heck, I allow them to alter it to "I just win" if they like), players tend to respond by just accepting the offered arena. Not always... occasionally a player will change things up... but in those cases, it's because they want to explore some other feature of the character. Yes, sometimes they do shift to an arena that's more likely to produce a positive outcome for their character... but if they're doing that, it's to show off the character's strengths (perhaps because they see an opportunity to showcase one that's been neglected by the Narrator). Or sometimes it's because they don't want the potential negative stakes of the contest in question.

It may even be that they want to see what it's like for the character to win in this sort of situation, or that it would be dramatic for that to happen now.

But it's never because they're looking just to win the contest as a player. Not in my game. I know some people play HQ that way, but I think it's pretty ill-suited to this. That's not to say that hard determination of the arena by the Narrator can't be functional... it's just that where it is, it's more of a simmy thing.

I can be pretty heavy-handed at times in implying that I want to investigate X arena or Y. Because, well, it's my game too. It's just not because I don't want the players to "get away" with using the same ability over and over.

In conclusion, HQ is ambiguous on this subject, in terms of the mechanics, and what the text says. But there are various functional ways that you can approach the mechanics, one of which is to use the technique of allowing players lattitude in negotiation on defining arenas, as part of an overall set of techniques used with the HQ rules that encourages exploration of character. Another method is to use lots of improv modifiers (including automatic failure), to establish a tighter standard, which tends to promote exploration of setting and/or system, and may even be a feature of a set of techniques that make HQ into a more gamism supporting game.

Mike

P.S. One technique that I use in this raft of techniques, that goes along well with allowing characters to negotiate arenas (or even just outright determine them), is to avoid "party play." Party play neccessitates more that abilities have the chance to work differently in different situations, else you run into the problem where nobody ever gets a chance to stand out in any way. Or, worse, you get player arguments about arena negotiation.

"You can't talk him out of that, I'm already attacking him!"

If you let characters have their own contests, then this problem goes away.