Re: Augmenting and Play Styles

From: ttrotsky2 <TTrotsky_at_...>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:19:38 -0000

• In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mike Holmes" <mike_c_holmes_at_y...> wrote:
  >
  > From one reading, Trotsky, one could believe that you feel that I'm
  > equivocating. If accused of such, I'd have to respond in kind, and
  say that
  > I think that you're creating straw men just to be beligerent.
  

Well, I have been saying 'if I've misunderstood you, then there may be no problem'; I fully acknowledged that possibility. (I could be wrong, but I'd guess most people here wouldn't describe me as someone who's intentionally belligerent very often ;)).

> But let's just
> assume that we're both being intellectually honest here, shall we? I'm
> probably miscommunicating somewhat, and you're reacting to arguments
that I
> didn't intend.

Certainly, your latest post does not seem to disagree so much with my position as I had thought your earlier ones did.
>
> Just to clarify what seem to be the misconceptions:
> 1. It seems to me that you think my solution is to always adhere to the
> rules as written. It's not. I myself am about as big a tinkerer as
you can
> imagine. I like HQ, however, because as it happens, it supports my
prefered
> mode of play without much modification (note, not none).
>
> 2. I wasn't advocating leaving the rule alone just to make it match the
> text, but because it happens to match the overall agenda in question.

My argument there is that the agenda(s) promoted by the rule set may not be exactly the one I require, and tweaking the rules might bring it more into line with what I want. (It may not, of course, but I've said from the start that there are many different approaches, not all of which will work for all groups).

> 4. Some rules create a single agenda, but that doesn't mean that I
think
> that everyone will like that agenda. But for those who do, why would
you
> change the rules that support it? If you can get everyone playing to
that
> agenda, why mess with what's causing it?

Sure. The question being posited, however, was that this wasn't the case...

> I will say that the number who cannot be "converted" to
> enjoying other agendas is pretty small from what I've seen.

I would estimate, from my own experience, that it's probably quite high - on the order of 90% or so. But I grant you that I have no hard proof of that, and, like you, I'm just one data point :) And, of course, it would depend on how widely variant the agendas being suggested are.

-- 
Trotsky
Gamer and Skeptic

MXLPs: 6 (Cap'n Q, Harvey Mills, Tim Hall x3, Brian Rogers)
------------------------------------------------------------
Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/