> > 1) If HQ1 is such a failure of design, why do *you* think that I
> > prefer it? I've said why *I* believe I prefer it, and made it clear
> > that I've tried the alternatives, but you seem to imply that my
> > answers can't be right. So what would you guess the reason is?
>
> Because you have yet to find a better match for your goals. I would
> guess you want a rules lite simulationist system. I suspect you like
> the handling time of HQ, but don't like the idea that numbers are
> based on story needs etc.
OK, there's probably some truth in that. I also like the fact that HQ can deal elegantly with things like debates and personal conflicts, and so on, which I gather is a fairly narrativist concern, but a rules-lite sim system would at least be something I'd be very interested in seeing.
> I hope you can see the difference
> between the friendly nature of a recommendation, which you can
> ignore at your own discretion, and an arrogant mandate to do
> something which I did not make.
OK, so that came across as harsher than intended. Fair enough; there's no point belabouring that one.
> Jamie, I suspect we should give up on this. I have no hope of
> persuading you I suspect.
I suspect not :)
> But I wanted to make sure that this list did
> not go away with the feeling that HQ2 was broken when I consider it
> very much fixed.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I consider HQ2 'broken'. I've gone out of my way, time and again, to say it's very good at what it does, and many people will like it. Its just that I don't consider HQ1 broken either, and it more closely fits my needs.
-- 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