Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:57:18 -0000

> "...the Pass/Fail Cycle is one of the things that I like least about
HQ2."
>
> I find this fairly interesting 'cause virtually every GM I've talked
to/corresponded with/played with in the last 25 years has used a pass fail cycle in their games*. Don't believe me? You're using a pass fail cycle everytime you modify a future encounter based on the results of the current one. This encounter a walkover? Beef up the next one. This one was a bit tough, battered the adventurers to the point where it looks like one sneeze will be fatal? Trim the next one a bit.
>
> All HQ2 does is formalise is - if you don't want to make the value
judgement yourself you don't have to - just look it up on the table.

I agree with Ash completely. This is why I said that HQ2 was remarkably "honest" as to what it is.

Nobody can say that David Dunham and I didn't run and play an awful lot of HQ1 games. We produced a 100+ booklet describing our 79+ session Orlmarth saga (complete with lots of my game notes and so on). That being said, Ash describes exactly how I ended up setting resistence levels in HQ1 - I would wait until my players finished figuring their fifteen minutes of augment calculations and state their total augmented ability. Then I would figure out the resistance based on what I would think met the needs of the game dynamic, or in short, the pass/fail cycle.

Jeff