Ian Cooper:
> > To bring it away from systems, I've occasionally wondered if one of
> the great joys that fans get from a world of which they are fans, is
> imagining what it would be like in real life.<
>
> Sure but you don't need a game system to do that. That's a vital and
> beautiful part of Glorantha fandom, but it does not need to influence
> mechanics.
Does not need to, sure. But that doesn't mean that it can't or mustn't, of course.
>
> > This is an attempt to render that world in absolute terms and such
> people will find relative terms frustrating to say the least.<
>
> This is a different style of play if used in an rpg to that taken by
> storytelling games. That approach is all about allowing someone to
> simulate life in an imaginary world. It is a valid approach, but the
> system needs a different set of trade-offs to make it happen, and a
> different set of rewards. The system needs to be gritty, the
> challenges about survival. RQ2 has this feel.
I don't think the system does have to be gritty to achieve this, nor do the challenges necessarily have to be about survival (although that's a popular option, of course). There are quite a number of features of RQ2 that don't suit my style of play these days - although it was a great system for me back in the day. I agree that HQ is not a good system for gritty gaming, but what I do disagree with is the idea that any style of gaming that involves absolute terms necessarily has to be gritty. Why so? That makes no sense to me - surely there are other possibilities?
> IMO HQ suffered because it tried to appeal both to the RQ style gamers
> who wanted gritty realism.
IMO, HQ1 triumphed because it struck a balance between simulationism and narrativism that I, personally, haven't seen bettered in any other system. In this particular respect, it's really something that I think should be held up as a splendid example for other games to follow. That's not to say it didn't have flaws, and HQ2 fixes a few of them, but this was very far from being among them, IMO.
> HQ2 is much more coherent, and to me a
> better design because it tries to be more clearly a storytelling game
> focused on helping us deliberately tell a story around the table in
> our session (as opposed to the more accidental, emergent story of
> RQ2).
Whereas to me, although I wouldn't call it a weaker design - it is what it intends to be - it's a step backwards from the perfect balance that HQ1 managed to strike. Or a step too far, if you prefer.
And this is the problem: there are more than two possible styles of game. Many people will, as you do, prefer HQ2 to either RQ or HQ1, and more power to them. But not everyone else is going to prefer RQ over either of the other two.
> The trick is to pick whatever game gives you the least friction to
> play as you want.
Aside from borrowing the new method for resolving extended contests, and the magic system (which isn't part of the rules as such), for me, this game would be HQ1. It's a great disappointment to me that future supplements look to be all either supporting RQ or HQ2-style play. Of course, I can (and will) adapt them, but that's going to be a bunch of work, and I can't help but feel left out in the cold by the HQ2 approach.
I understand why it was done - as Ian says, a lot of people *will* prefer HQ2, and why shouldn't they have a system that works for them? But, on a personal level, 'disappointment' sums my feelings up. But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail