Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:45:17 -0000

> By 'this', you're referring to the Pass/Fail Cycle and its
> implications, yes? If so, I'd say that this is, indeed, core to the
> whole debate, and that the Pass/Fail Cycle is one of the things that I
> like least about HQ2.

And I appreciate the honesty of the Pass/Fail Cycle. Most GMs employ something like a P/FC in their campaigns, making sure that there is dramatic tension at the right moment of the game and so on. HQ2 puts that up front and center.

> Not that I don't want a good mix of narrativist elements in my game,
> alongside the more sim stuff, but the P/FC is a step too far for me;
> it's when it gets introduced that the game stops being fun for me as a
> GM. As a player, at least in the two games of HQ2 I played at cons, I
> don't find it so noticeable, although I suspect it might become so in
> an ongoing campaign. Equally, I get the impression (and I'm sure
> they'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the P/FC is core to why the
> "undiluted narrativist" players enjoy HQ2 so much.

I'm pretty sure I am not an "undiluted narrativist" but I greatly appreciate and enjoy the flexibility and strength given by the P/FC. It is a very powerful tool for GMs and helps reinforce the dynamics of play rather than be an obstacle in its own right. Robin did a fantastic job with HQ2 and I am very excited about its forthcoming release.

Jeff