Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:53:21 -0000

> As an example: RQ is commonly trotted out as 'simulationist game'
> [sic]; HeroQuest, in opposition, as a 'narratavist game'
>
> This is wholly disingenuous.

I agree with Stu. I find much of the "narrativist/simulationist" debate overblown and artificial.

> If you take the terminology as originally envisioned, then it is
> clear that--per era, thought and execution--HQ in a sense caters
> for 'simulationist' play as much as RQ. That's the whole point. Was
> HW/HQ written simply so that Gloranthaphiles could put on their
> kaftans and play these 'new' games with the cool kids? No. Central to
> HW/HQ's entire formulation is the notion that it--at least to some--
> offers a better game model of Greg's Glorantha.

And central to HQ2's entire formulation is that it offers a better game model of Greg's Gloranthan than HW/HQ1. As someone who writes a lot of non-gaming Glorantha material with Greg, the Moon Design team have worked very hard to make sure that the Gloranthan material for HQ2 (the Appendix and more importantly The Sartar Book and The Pavis Book) captures the feeling and experience of Greg's stories better than previous rules systems. I think we succeeded but at the very least that was our number one objective.

Jeff