My central thesis is that the system of HQ2 doesn’t provide any additional benefit by using it and in some cases actually subtracts from the overall game fun.

The players: Alex, Ian, Ben (GM), Jim, Erik
Campaign: Pelanda during the Lunar revolution (Glorantha). One of the central questions during the game was ‘what will you do when the revolution comes’

My character was InsiEstes a hideously ugly philosopher of the Kassa school. Here are the relevant abilities I had listed.

No appreciation for the arts 15
Hatred will not let him rest 17
Knows what he’s against 16
Condemn Pelandian morality 1W

So during the last session of the campaign the city is in turmoil. Public order is breaking down, Ian’s character IdoDesa (a butcher who wanted to be an artist) has ended up being King. A disastrous HeroQuest has mucked up the mythological conception of justice. Lunar revolutionaries are running riot and demanding food. Things are at boiling point.

InsiEstes (me) has been sent by the King to quell the Lunar mob. Now instead of quelling them I decide instead to tell them to steal (a big moral taboo in Pelandian society). My basic intent is to have them run amok and over turn the city. InsiEstes at this point just hates the established order, he’s a resentful malicious type who just wants to hurt the society that he thinks has shunned him.

So I state ‘get the mob to run amok and steal’ as my prize. Now Ben the GM vetoes this because Pelandians wouldn’t do that. Instead they’re going to outcast me from the city, make me a stranger (the worst crime in Pelandan society). Ben asks me if this ok first and I’m fine with it.

Now this is a pretty cool outcome. The important point to remember here is that it was decided by GM veto. The way the system is set up I have no idea whether I can make a mob riot. I have to just state an intent and hope it doesn’t get Vetoed. Now another point is this. If I hadn’t been ok then we’d have had to retcon the last 15-20 minutes of play because what I was doing up until that point was a set up so I could try and incite the mob.

In this case the system provides no guidance and is worse than something like GURPS where I can (presumably) consult an 'incite mob' chart, look at their attitudes and then come up with an appropriate difficulty. In the case of GURPS I have feedback, in the case of HQ2 I don’t.

The session rolls on and things start coming to a close. Ians character decides to give up the throne and leave to become an artist. Upon hearing this my character goes into a rage. The King who he entrusted to overthrow society is giving up on that and instead going to ‘do art’. So I state as my prize that I will kill him.

Ians character had at this point answered the question about what he’ll do when the revolution comes. Really he just wanted to be an artist and the whole revolution thing was frustration because he couldn’t do that (I’m simplifying). So thematically he’s come to a close. He leaves the city and a stranger is waiting for him, InsiEstes, rock in hand. This is my final dice roll of the game.

We do an extended contest and during the course of it I try and persuade Ians character that being an artist is futile. Ian doesn’t want this because he’s closed his character and this makes sense to me. The difficulty is that Ian needs a prize to actually enter the contest. His prize is to kill me, which I don’t find thematically pleasing but at this point we’d spent a bit of time getting here and so I just accept this.
When the contest starts I begin burning Heropoints (I had far more than Ian) to get a victory. This wasn’t that satisfying but I’d put myself in a position where I (Alex) didn’t want the consequences of failure. So IdoDesa and InsiEstes struggle but at the end of the contest I don’t have enough points to kill IdoDesa. So although I win the contest he isn’t dead he’s just badly hurt.

I try and roll with it. Insiestes hatred has consumed him flat out, he’s give up any pretence at being a revolutionary and just wants to hurt people he’s envious off. Of course since he didn’t do any lasting damage to IdoDesa so this was all a bit weak. He didn’t become a murderer. Considering the intensity of the campaign the ending felt very wet to me.

Now this last contest was just poorly chosen by me in a lot of ways. Yet it highlights one of the major problems of the system. It works by negative feedback. You have no real guidance as to what you can and can’t do. The success levels chart itself also seems to suck tension away. Consistently we’ve reached boiling point in the fiction. Everyone in the group really tense over an outcome. The dice are rolled and we get ‘Well you succeed a bit.’ What is actually happening is that the prize is often changed. So you get something like the prize but not exactly. The tension builds but often fails to resolve, instead kind of trickling away.

So my argument ends up being. HQ2 seems to fail as a system because it adds nothing compared to:

Using GURPS or Solarsystem or something else with a skill list that has clear boundaries.

Forgetting abilities all together and just flipping a coin to see if you pass or fail.

I’m in the position of not seeing why you need abilities. What do they bring to the game? There are a lot of HQ veterans here. What does the system offer that I’m missing? Lastly, is the HQ2 system FITM or FATE? My understanding was that it was fortune at the end but if it’s fortune in the middle then I don’t understand what fortune in the middle is, help clearing that up would be appreciated.

What Genre/Setting/Style decisions did you make prior to play?

Can you give any examples of the GM deciding what a "Stretch" was in the particular context?

What about setting Target Numbers based on dramatic logic and prior successes by players?

Did the GM track the success curve of the group or were Target Numbers tailored to each character?

If you can give some specific application of the new rules it would help further the discussion of HQ2's merits or faults.

I can't see any mention of these new rules so we can't discuss if the new edition helps or not.

Hi Alexander, just not sure what you mean here

Now this is a pretty cool outcome. The important point to remember here...

Now this is a pretty cool outcome. But despite that, it's important point to remember here...

Hey Callan. I liked the result in that instance but I don’t like the potential that lurks underneath. In a game like Vampire I know that if I have charisma 5 I can go to a large group of people and persuade them to do dastardly deeds if I get four successes. In HQ2 I never know exactly what it is I can do.

Epweissengruber, I haven‘t played HQ1 so I personally can’t compare editions. 
The resolution order for HQ2 runs like this:

Player states prize
Player chooses states means/tactics of getting prize
Player chooses ability he’s using
GM sets resistance using pass/fail or by assigning number
Fortune is employed
GM narrates outcome

Quick example from actual play:
Anrur (me) goes to talk to his mentor Orkarl about some Lunar converts.
In character me and Orkarl chat a bit, he starts talking about the bad influence of the Lunars. I state my prize ‘convince Orkarl that Humakt has a plan for the Lunars and they are not the enemy.’ I pick an ability ‘initiate of Humakt 1W.’ I don’t state the means because I’ve already said in the state prize section I’m talking with him. I then say some stuff in character ‘The Lunar god talker healed me. I asked her before I pledged my sword “are you corrupting the clan” and was satisfied they were not.’ (I’m paraphrasing). We then roll the dice and consult the success chart. I get a major success. The GM narrates Orlkarl as being convinced by my argument and he even decides to join me in defending the Moon winds against any hostile clan members.

How the GM sets the difficulty in the game is problematic in my opinion but I’m more focussed on how the combination of prize, ability and means/tactics work. If anyone wants to give an AP example from HQ1 that would be helpful to me. I’m not seeing how the system differs from say ‘world of darkness’ or ‘cyberpunk’ except that in those games the means and the ability are equivalent. How does making them non equivalent help play?

So if the above happened in cyberpunk for instance, I’d use persuade or empathy or fast talk to get Orlkarl to agree with me. The GM can’t veto my use of these, it’s pretty explicit what they do and how they are used. What is it that abilities do except add an extra unnecessary layer?

Don't vampire and cyberpunk have the 'golden' rule in their text somewhere? The GM's just as capable of veto in those, invoking the golden rule, isn't he? I wouldn't say your any more empowered in those games. Not that I'm advocating the golden rule or vetoing as part of a design.

Callan, I appreciate the input but you are responding to my questions with questions. I can’t continue writing blocks of text in response.

1) Conflict Resolution Mechanic

Player states prize
Player chooses states means/tactics of getting prize
Player chooses ability he’s using
GM sets resistance using pass/fail or by assigning number
Fortune is employed
GM narrates outcome

Player chooses states means/tactics of getting prize

GM sets resistance using pass/fail or by assigning number

In character me and Orkarl chat a bit, he starts talking about the bad influence of the Lunars. I state my prize ‘convince Orkarl that Humakt has a plan for the Lunars and they are not the enemy.’ I pick an ability ‘initiate of Humakt 1W.’

But I don't know what resistance the Narrator set

How the GM sets the difficulty in the game is problematic in my opinion but I’m more focussed on how the combination of prize, ability and means/tactics work.

So if the above happened in cyberpunk for instance, I’d use persuade or empathy or fast talk to get Orlkarl to agree with me. The GM can’t veto my use of these, it’s pretty explicit what they do and how they are used. What is it that abilities do except add an extra unnecessary layer?

epweissengruber wrote:
Abilities are not a "layer" in HQ2: describing one's abilities and using them for certain kinds of play is what the game is all about.  And that kind of play is irreducibly Narrativist.

Alexander wrote:
Callan, I appreciate the input but you are responding to my questions with questions. I can’t continue writing blocks of text in response.

Two very strong insights!

I just don’t see how it helps Story Now play. Consider my Humakt example from earlier. The system doesn’t add anything to the basic probability roll. The ability didn’t help express theme. It seems like any other system used for vanilla narrativism.

HQ2 just seems to sit in the middle of ... two extremes twiddling it’s thumbs. Am I missing some vital point about how ability usage actually enters play?

Alexander wrote:
Quick example from actual play:
Anrur (me) goes to talk to his mentor Orkarl about some Lunar converts.
In character me and Orkarl chat a bit, he starts talking about the bad influence of the Lunars. I state my prize ‘convince Orkarl that Humakt has a plan for the Lunars and they are not the enemy.’ I pick an ability ‘initiate of Humakt 1W.’ I don’t state the means because I’ve already said in the state prize section I’m talking with him. I then say some stuff in character ‘The Lunar god talker healed me. I asked her before I pledged my sword “are you corrupting the clan” and was satisfied they were not.’ (I’m paraphrasing). We then roll the dice and consult the success chart. I get a major success. The GM narrates Orlkarl as being convinced by my argument and he even decides to join me in defending the Moon winds against any hostile clan members.

Fred's nailed it. I was trying to figure out how to express that, and coming up dry. In my limited but satisfying play experience (with HQ one, mind), what abilities feed a conflict make a statement, occasionally powerful, about who your character is. When this statement, through action, addresses Premise, all that Color says a great deal. there have always been Abilities that handle that particular heavy lifting better than others (Ruthless 3W vs Sword 3W, say), but overall the tools are there to build a narrative Story Now-fashion. And my understanding is that HQ2 has actually pared down the sheer number of abilities on a sheet to allow easier focus on the ones that are truly central to expressing that character.

It's also worth noting that HQ puts relationships right in the forefront of this system by making them Abilities. Sure, using Eloquent to persuade my brother is fairly value-neutral, but using Eloquent augmented by My Brother Respects Me is pregnant with meaning. I'm leveraging my brother's respect toward getting his assent in a contentious manner. Now the outcome of the conflict can't help but have a huge impact on that relationship, provided the players are attentive to that at ALL.

(And incidentally, I was trying to come up with a contrasting augment that was more neutral, and it was actually HARD. For instance, Eloquent plus Well-Liked. Well, damn but if "Well-liked" isn't a hell of a pregnant quality to leverage--"That's easy for you to say, bro; everyone likes you." or even, given success, "OK, you win. Everyone'll take your side anyway." Every ability used in a conflict can have moral or emotional value, given that you look for it. And playing HQ for Story Now means looking for it.)

Peace,
-Joel

I’m still not sure why the abilities themselves are needed. Take the previous Humakt example. The fact I’m an initiate is already in play in the fiction. Same with the eloquent brother example. It’s the tactics I use that are thematically relevant. Not which ability I select. All the abilities do is limit the range of tactics I can use somewhat.

Now something like In A Wicked Age does a similar thing. The big difference is that you roll the dice first and this seems to change everything for me. I can grasp why traits in IAWA help get the thematic juices flowing.

So in HQ if the resolution order was:

Choose prize
Choose ability
Roll dice
Choose tactics

Then it would make sense to me. Say if I was using ‘ruthless’ as my trait. If I fail then it could be because mercy got the better of me that time. With the resolution sequence as it is written, failing after choosing ruthless always means that ruthlessness didn’t work.

Does that make any sense or is just an idiosyncratic oddity of mine? It just feels the resolution order is wrong and I’m not sure why. It could be totally in my imagination, a kind of cognitive blindness. I’d like to try and get to the bottom of it though.

Huh. I hadn't looked at it from that angle. With IaWA it's true that you roll your forms first, but it always strikes me as weak when players roll forms and then just have their actions be whatever, instead of stemming from the forms chosen. All rolling the forms beforehand means to me is that you're committing in advance to narrating that tactic as opposed another.

In the case of your "ruthless" example, I'd say you're exactly right: HQ will never tell you, from a roll result whether you were ruthless or not. It'll tell you what effect your ruthlessness has had. YOU make the choice to be ruthless, just like you make the choice of whether tu pull a gun on the Town Steward in Dogs in the Vineyard. Then, the choice made, you roll dice. that's the heart of Story now.

You seem kind of down on that possibility: a fail result means only that ruthlessness didn't work. I say, awesome! "ruthlessness didn't work" is a great outcome to work with. 'Cause it doesn't end there. Now someone (the Narrator in this case, I believe) gets to describe why and how ruthlessness didn't work. I could come up with a bunch of fun examples in an instant, like I did with the "persuade brother" example. Your target is defiant, your target is totally cowed and useless, your once-healthy relationship is broken, etc. etc. Awesome stuff.

"Choose what you do, then roll" is a pretty solid systemic framework for Story Now. "Roll, then find out what you do" is most assuredly not.

peace,
-Joel

Alexander wrote:
Campaign: Pelanda during the Lunar revolution (Glorantha). One of the central questions during the game was ‘what will you do when the revolution comes’

My character was InsiEstes a hideously ugly philosopher of the Kassa school. Here are the relevant abilities I had listed.

No appreciation for the arts 15
Hatred will not let him rest 17
Knows what he’s against 16
Condemn Pelandian morality 1W

InsiEstes (me) has been sent by the King to quell the Lunar mob. Now instead of quelling them I decide instead to tell them to steal (a big moral taboo in Pelandian society). My basic intent is to have them run amok and over turn the city. InsiEstes at this point just hates the established order, he’s a resentful malicious type who just wants to hurt the society that he thinks has shunned him.

So I state ‘get the mob to run amok and steal’ as my prize. Now Ben the GM vetoes this because Pelandians wouldn’t do that. Instead they’re going to outcast me from the city, make me a stranger (the worst crime in Pelandan society). Ben asks me if this ok first and I’m fine with it.

Now this is a pretty cool outcome. The important point to remember here is that it was decided by GM veto. The way the system is set up I have no idea whether I can make a mob riot. I have to just state an intent and hope it doesn’t get Vetoed. Now another point is this. If I hadn’t been ok then we’d have had to retcon the last 15-20 minutes of play because what I was doing up until that point was a set up so I could try and incite the mob.

Melinglor wrote:

"Choose what you do, then roll" is a pretty solid systemic framework for Story Now. "Roll, then find out what you do" is most assuredly not.

Danny_K wrote:

...it seems to me that you might not be getting to address premise because the GM veto is there as a buffer, keeping the system from actually affecting the course of play. 

I'm scratching my head a bit at that distinction, Alexander. If I squint I can kinda see that you're pointing toward two possible interpretations of the "Now"? Like, "action now" versus "meaning now?"

All I can think to say is, Story Now is about action now (epiphenomenalism) because roleplaying is a social activity. "Answering theme all by myself" isn't Story Now because it's not engaging the group. It's simple authorship. And a single player authoring an answer to Premise/Theme is counter to Story Now activity, whether that single player is a "GM" or not.

There's a weird twisty-turny logic thing I'm seeing in your argument, which looks semantically sound but doesn't sit right. Yeah, I guess turning "how did your action work out?" over to dice does surrender thematic meaning in a sense. But you're still choosing what to do. There's no clockwork absolving you of responsibility by saying "Oh you rolled a 1, I guess you weren't compassionate after all." Surely that's a FAR greater surrender of Theme-authorship? Have you heard the old canard that parodies the movement of Story Now-facilitating games? It goes, "Roll to resolve your grief. *roll* you have absolved your grief." But that ain't Story Now from where I'm sitting. It's a caricature. It's valuable inasmuch as it can warn us not to head down that path.

A final thought on the "answering theme all by myself" issue: it also occurs to me that you may be pursuing a red herring in "who narrates the results." You can do Story Now with a variety of arrangements. It may be solely the GM in Heroquest, but that's hardly the only functional arrangement. It's an issue of technique, not agenda. But in terms of this particular Technique, I find it a useful component of "providing opposition" to be able to state consequences; otherwise it tends to get a bit masturbatory.

Peace,
-Joel

Melinglor wrote:
I'm scratching my head a bit at that distinction, Alexander. If I squint I can kinda see that you're pointing toward two possible interpretations of the "Now"? Like, "action now" versus "meaning now?"

All I can think to say is, Story Now is about action now (epiphenomenalism) because roleplaying is a social activity. "Answering theme all by myself" isn't Story Now because it's not engaging the group. It's simple authorship. And a single player authoring an answer to Premise/Theme is counter to Story Now activity, whether that single player is a "GM" or not.