Seems fair enough.
> I think you're wrong
Wouldnīt be the first time.
> and the rules work just fine for the way *I* want to
> play - reduced chance of "death" and all. And just because I
happen to like
> the rules the way they are is not indicative that they are that
way
> *because* of me - take a look at the credits for HW and HQ. We all
shared
> the same vision of the die mechanism.
And a sterling vision it is too. Just for the record, though, I wouldn't propose making actual death more likely. I'd never want a character to die without the player having decided, basically. Being more frequently compromised (albeit remporarily) beyond the -50% penalty, though, I would. Or might.
I know it isnīt just you, Rory. But, I only started thinking about this because some people, who have themselves run a lot of games and some (or one at least) of whom have published a fair amount of HW/HQ stuff, posted on molad (and here as well I think?). What I understand from those posts is that they perceive a problem with the system [I shanīt try to explain as I will inevitably put words into mouths] and that this problem translates into many fewer people adopting HQ than the game deserves. This coming from people who run demo games at conventions could be a problem for the product.
I hope that you understand Iīm not just trying to snipe, or just trying to be a clever clogs.
Sam.
Powered by hypermail