QuestWorlds is coming—who else is hyped?
- Thread starter Horacio
- Start date
Ian Cooper
Explorer
In Hero Wars, the resistance had statistics, just like PCs, even if it was an inanimate object. While measuring the world is attractive, it can break down in a game defined by abilities, not characteristics. What does Large mean? We make it an ability, not just part of the description. Can a PC put experience points into their Large to increase it beyond that of a horse? Because an ability represents your ability to overcome an obstacle, it doesn't work well if we try to use it to measure.
In addition, the GM often improvises in a game that wants victory or defeat to spawn new branches in the narrative. When you want to improvise, requiring stat blocks becomes an obstacle without books of pre-generated stats. That is the wrong direction for a fast-paced storytelling game.
In HeroQuest 2e, Robin Laws looked at this problem, and decided to drop the idea of giving opposition stats due to these issues and instead moved to the abstract notion of resistance. With different resistance levels, the GM would decides how hard/easy something is and uses the TN associated with that resistance.
But how "hard" is something? HQ 2e introduced the idea of the pass/fail cycle - the notion that in storytelling, the ease with which our protagonists can overcome obstacles differs depending on which part of the story they are in and whether they have had prior success recently or not. The GM tracked victory/defeat, determined how challenging the next obstacle would be, and adjusted details to reflect that.
You can see the full evolution of this idea in Hamlet's Hit Points.
It was...controversial. Some liked that resistance should work the way it does in fiction/cinema. Others disliked the concept of 'adjusting" the opposition based on story rhythm over player choice. In the UK, we would say that the pass/fail cycle was very "Marmite"; some loved it, and some hated it.
With QuestWorlds we chose to keep the idea of the GM setting a resistance, based on their feeling for how challenging an obstacle should be, but not keep pass/fail.
The concept of story rhythm is helpful as a factor for the GM to consider when framing scenes - how tough a challenge should I set up - much more than mechanically deciding resistances.
So, yes, feel free to use the Hamlet's Hit Points ideas when deciding what scene you should frame next, but we trust the GM to have a feel for how hard something should be in the genre.
Genre is key here, however. Something may be possible in some genres but not in the real world. Our core book example is using a knife to slide down a sail. In the real world, it can't be done (thanks to Mythbusters for proving this), but in the swashbuckling genre, it should be possible.
Retaining the move away from stat blocks helps us with the speed of improvisation and avoids the issue of trying to use abilities as "measurements of the world." That said, it is good to try and keep your resistance consistent to avoid a loss of suspension of disbelief. The "credibility test" applies to GMs, too.
That said, it is easy to put back. We might well look at it in a later volume.
I am happy to put it out under ORC license via our GitHub repository, if other designers would like to have SRD text to use. Just let me know and I will get to it, as part of reviewing the SRD for any error correction from the Core Book.
Good, news on that front: Alliance includes an ORC-licensed Pass/Fail cycle implementation for anyone who would find it useful. Similarly, Humakt e.V.'s adventures include a Fumble mechanic, should anyone wish to incorporate such.
Seeds are sprouting.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
I would love to have as much of whatever was dropped during the move from HQ2 to QW put into the SRD. I loved the pass/fail cycle. I still use a version of it in other games regularly.
Autumnal
Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
The abstract resistance is one of my all-time favorite things ever in RPG mechanics, and one that spoils nearly every alternative approach for me. It gives me liberty to consider complex scenes in much more detail before summing them up. I am such a slavering fan about it.
The two examples of abstract resistance I'm most familiar with are DCs + required number of successes in a 4e skill challenge, and the use of the Doom Pool as opposition in Marvel Heroic RP.
Do you have any thoughts on similarities/contrasts in the QuestWorlds approach? Also, can you say a bit more about how it speaks to you (as an idea) and/or assist you (as an applied technique) in relation to complex scenes?
Autumnal
Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
Sure, with the note that I know the first of your examples pretty well but the second effectively barely at all. Some things about Cortex fall through holes in my head and so not stick. Also, Sunset says hi; she’s nuzzling my hand and the phone vigorously ( ). Pardon any typos.
Things in QW don’t have stats. They have descriptions. As seems appropriate, the GM can make notes for NPCs on their appearance and background, their motives as individuals and members of factions, particular strengths and weaknesses that might serve as abilities and flaws, and like that. The same is true for any other element of the scene setting that the GM may want to call attention to. The GM considers all of these as compared to how the PCs are going about facing the obstacles in their way (this is what ability scores measure: how effective they are at overcoming obstacles), any special assets internal or external they have at the moment, and if the GM is inclined that way, where they are in an arc of movement toward their goal. Then the GM sets a single difficulty summing up the referee to which stuff in scene will be hard or easy to overcome for characters doing the stuff their players choose for them do.
There are definitely resonances of this with 4e, what I understand Cortex to be doing, Over the Edge, and like that. Robin Laws, Rob Heinsoo, Csm Banks, and Jonathan Tweet have all been friends a long time, who keep in regular touch, brainstorm together, critique each others’ manuscripts when time allows, compare ugly shirts at conventions, play in each others’ games when they can. They all want to do cool new things and have overlapping senses of coolness and newness.
For me, QW feels like the furthest in this particular design possibility, and it’s congenial to my mind because I can more easily keep many descriptive details in mind than I can with a bunch of numbers. In practice, I’ve seldom found that I can keep enough sets of descriptive quantification in mind for them to feel more rewarding in some way than the QW approach, and they even when I can, the effort tires me out soon. It’s just plain more fun for me.
Things in QW don’t have stats. They have descriptions. As seems appropriate, the GM can make notes for NPCs on their appearance and background, their motives as individuals and members of factions, particular strengths and weaknesses that might serve as abilities and flaws, and like that. The same is true for any other element of the scene setting that the GM may want to call attention to. The GM considers all of these as compared to how the PCs are going about facing the obstacles in their way (this is what ability scores measure: how effective they are at overcoming obstacles), any special assets internal or external they have at the moment, and if the GM is inclined that way, where they are in an arc of movement toward their goal. Then the GM sets a single difficulty summing up the referee to which stuff in scene will be hard or easy to overcome for characters doing the stuff their players choose for them do.
There are definitely resonances of this with 4e, what I understand Cortex to be doing, Over the Edge, and like that. Robin Laws, Rob Heinsoo, Csm Banks, and Jonathan Tweet have all been friends a long time, who keep in regular touch, brainstorm together, critique each others’ manuscripts when time allows, compare ugly shirts at conventions, play in each others’ games when they can. They all want to do cool new things and have overlapping senses of coolness and newness.
For me, QW feels like the furthest in this particular design possibility, and it’s congenial to my mind because I can more easily keep many descriptive details in mind than I can with a bunch of numbers. In practice, I’ve seldom found that I can keep enough sets of descriptive quantification in mind for them to feel more rewarding in some way than the QW approach, and they even when I can, the effort tires me out soon. It’s just plain more fun for me.
Thanks @Autumnal!
My recollection of HQ revised was that the pass/fail cycle applied for tests against "scene elements", but for literally opposed tests (eg PC vs NPC) it was resolved vs the opponent's relevant ability. Marvel Heroic RP is similar (vs a NPC opponent - use their stats; vs a "scene element" - use the Doom Pool).
4e D&D, on the other hand, doesn't really make provision for incorporating an opponent's stats into a skill challenge - it's just the DC set by reference to the DC setting rules, whether the "opposition" is "active" (like a NPC) or "passive" (like a "scene element").
From what you're saying, it sounds like Quest Worlds has moved in this 4e direction.
Kinda on-topic: I don't know what Sergio M got booted from RPG.net, so I hope pointing to him is not in bad taste (or worse) - but I thought his (brief) comment on HeroQuest 2e was pretty good, and had a reasonable critique of some features of 4e D&D: [RPG]: HeroQuest Core Rules Second Edition, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/4) | RPGnet Reviews
The Doom Pool is probably vulnerable to the same criticism - it can work P/F style, but (at least in my experience) it takes a while to get the hang of it, and even then you have to be pretty deft as GM in making decisions about when and what to spend.
PS. Tell Sunset that pemerton says "Hi!"
My recollection of HQ revised was that the pass/fail cycle applied for tests against "scene elements", but for literally opposed tests (eg PC vs NPC) it was resolved vs the opponent's relevant ability. Marvel Heroic RP is similar (vs a NPC opponent - use their stats; vs a "scene element" - use the Doom Pool).
4e D&D, on the other hand, doesn't really make provision for incorporating an opponent's stats into a skill challenge - it's just the DC set by reference to the DC setting rules, whether the "opposition" is "active" (like a NPC) or "passive" (like a "scene element").
From what you're saying, it sounds like Quest Worlds has moved in this 4e direction.
Kinda on-topic: I don't know what Sergio M got booted from RPG.net, so I hope pointing to him is not in bad taste (or worse) - but I thought his (brief) comment on HeroQuest 2e was pretty good, and had a reasonable critique of some features of 4e D&D: [RPG]: HeroQuest Core Rules Second Edition, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/4) | RPGnet Reviews
The Doom Pool is probably vulnerable to the same criticism - it can work P/F style, but (at least in my experience) it takes a while to get the hang of it, and even then you have to be pretty deft as GM in making decisions about when and what to spend.
PS. Tell Sunset that pemerton says "Hi!"
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
I dunno. There are a few games in a similar vein that push the needle a bit further. Take the new Discworld game as an example.
You’re effectively doing free-form trait creation same as QW but with specific categories of traits. Instead of ranks and masteries, the referee determines in the moment how effective your approach, trait, prep, plan, etc is for the current circumstances and based on that tells you to roll a certain die (1d4, 1d6, 1d10, or 1d12). The referee always rolls 1d8 against you. Higher roll wins.
To me this takes much of QW and condenses it into a smaller, smoother, and easier to use package. That it's coming from Modiphius is surprising enough. That they've said they'll use it for some other games as well has me floored.
Autumnal
Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
@pemerton : I haven’t gotten to all the details in QW yet, but in HQ2, there were often prominent NPCs with a few abilities spelled out and sometimes scored, and likewise for prominent elements of the scene like artifacts, long-term environmental excitement, and soon. You’d start with those and adjust overall resistance if anything else seemed like it should make things noticeably easier or harder. As nearly as I know, same for QW, but I’ll see if I need to change my description later.
@overgeeked : I haven’t been following Discworld RPG news. Though I enjoy the books, I’ve never had any urge to game in the setting. And with very limited budget, I’ve figured that I could learn more when it comes out. That does sound interesting, though a proliferation of die types isn’t really good for me.
@overgeeked : I haven’t been following Discworld RPG news. Though I enjoy the books, I’ve never had any urge to game in the setting. And with very limited budget, I’ve figured that I could learn more when it comes out. That does sound interesting, though a proliferation of die types isn’t really good for me.
Similar Threads
