The hidden assumption in your statement is that there is some set of
rules provided that doesn't. And if I have to 'wing' it to such an
extent that I throw the rules out of the window more often than not then
the game has limited utility as a product to me.
>
>The worst possible way to play HW, IMO, is as a sort of 'narrative
>simulation'. There's an extreme, if only implied, example of this
>early in the book, somewhat bizarrely: playing the 'AP game', and
>then adding on the 'narrative' as a sort of running commentary, _after_
>the situation has been resolved 'by the numbers'. Really, what's
>the point? Played that way, it's effectively just a bad simulation,
>not a narrative game at all.
Yes. This puzzles me too. I can't for the life of me make myself see what the point of that passage at the top of the Narrator's Book is.
What I'm after (and what I'll probably end up writing) is a system that allows my players to say: I want to try ABC (whether that's a combat move, an appeal to the clan chief or a magical invocation) and I can after one dice roll: the result of that attempt was XYZ and then go on to the next thing. Which the peculiar 'suspended resolution' of the AP system doesn't permit.
-- Michael Cule
Powered by hypermail