> Last week (Ian was absent) we introduced out neighbouring D&Ders to
In a
> Wicked Age. (For the uninitiated, IaWA is a zero-preparation game, for
> which you make up everything as you go along. There is no "thing" to be
> simulated, and no real objective to be "won"). They loved it, and
had no
> problem "getting" how the game worked.
Whereas I have tried it, and did not like it overly much - at least for general Gloranthan gaming, because I can see situations where it might work for me. Not everyone will have the same tastes, and that other people are not being alienated does not mean that I am not being.
> I'd further suggest that a coherent game, by more clearly indicating
how
> it is designed to be played, better guides the players to a style of
> play that is more appropriate, and therefore *more fun*, for that game.
I would strongly suggest that, contrary to opinions recently expressed here, HQ1 *is* a coherent game. Indeed, I have no difficulty agreeing with your statement above - and finding that HQ1 is, in general, a good example of how a coherent game can work. Which doesn't mean that more could not have been done in this regard - which was what I was hoping for from HQ2.
> As we do not need to restrict ourselves to a single game, there is no
> need for games to compromise in their style of play.
In my view, HQ1 is not a compromise, but a superb example of what a game can be. Yes, there are other possibilities, and that's cool. Yes, HQ1 had some flaws, one or two of which have been fixed in HQ2. But that does not mean that games that strike a good balance should be verboten.
> We have both HQ and
> RQ for Glorantha gaming. That suggests RQ should be uncompromisingly
> "simulationist" and HQ should be uncompromisingly "narrativist".
I can certainly see where this opinion has come from, and why the decisions were taken that resulted in what we have. In that respect, I am not intending to criticise anybody - there are people that will have been waiting for a game like HQ2 for a long time, and I see no reason why they shouldn't get that. All I am saying is that, as someone who doesn't *want* either an uncompromisingly simulationist or an uncompromisingly narrativist game, it's a disappointment for me.
-- 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