> Now that I have read the HW rules, which mean I have complied with the
> pre-requisite "Have a look at the final version before commenting on the
> draft rules", I think I can give my first thoughts.
> Unfortunately, I have not been given the chance to play the game,
> so some of
> my comments are based on theory and first impression only.
I don't comply with the pre-requisite of having the published version of the rules (yet) but I have had the chance of playing the game.
> Level of game : I really don't think a lot of new players will be able to
> gamemaster HW as their first (or so) RPG.
If on one hand I think you're mostly right, on the other I am not so sure simply because the lack of rigid rules allows newcomers to exert their imagination to its fullest. They don't have to learn or know a lot things simply because they can make it up. It takes a lot of storytelling skill, I'll admit, but after all everybody played roleplaying games before knowing about the existence of roleplaying systems.
> I think
> this will be
> too much work for the Narrator during the game, with not a lot of rules to
> stand on (a lot of reference in the rules are made to "Narrator's choice,
> opinion, or similar statement - maybe we could simply not roll dice at all
> !).
What's wrong we not rolling the dice at all? ;)
Jokes aside, the trend of RPGs nowadays is to have some kind of rule which explicitly allows GMs to break, ignore or whatever the other rules to maintain the most important thing IMO: players' SoD. So these statements are not surprising, they are redundant! And anyway who is the GM who never ignored a rule (if only else because he forgot it) or made a choice based on common sense rather than rules?
I think that only first edition AD&D encouraged you to follow the letter of the OFFICIAL rules to avoid being scorned by other DM, more pure than you.
> Combat : While, when I was young, I liked the attack/parry/hit location/
> weapon damage routine of RQ, I started losing interest in it, and I now
> prefer the more abstract Pendragon system. The HW system on this
> point is a
> bit too abstract.
The HW system is indeed abstract, but since its purpose is IMO to parameterize what's happening in order to provide a coherent story flow rather than an exact simulation, I think it's fine. APs tell you how well a combatant is doing, not what is doing. This is left to players' descriptions. This way you have many more tactical choices and possible combat outcomes than any other RPG - as many as you can think of, in fact. And you don't need to have a rule for each, not even an application of a basic metarule, because the AP/augmentation system (together with Narrator's common sense) automatically takes care of that.
Anyway, I understand this is largely a matter of taste. I like HW's design philosophy and I'm having a lot of fun running it. My players too enjoy the cinematic (nearly manga-like) mood of the game. Things looked strange to me at first, but I found they work sufficiently well. And I hope I will be able to have the full game in my hands as soon as possible.
Cheers, A hoping Alex.
Powered by hypermail