Tim Ellis
I'm fully in agreement with Trotsky on this (both in respect of HQ2 being
very good, and in terms of the absence of statistics requiring more work at
the table during play).
Tim Ellis
When I read (an earlier draft than the continuum release of) the playtest
rules, I came away with the impression that the pass/fail cycle and relative
resistances were an option. A way the game *could* be played, not the way it
*must*.
Tim Ellis
Not only were there stats for the troublesome griffin,
:D
Tim Ellis
but a section beforehand that talks about assigning stats when creating
creatures.
Tim Ellis
There was also a section of "standard" resistances for people who were not
happy with the idea of relative resistances.
- not any more. was it billed like that? can you objectively surmise as to
why it was removed?
Tim Ellis
I could see it was an interesting idea, and with the right GM and Players it
could indeed provide a great game.
- this GM and players would need to adhere to HQ2's creative agenda, imho
For the less experienced GM it provides great advice, and an explicit description of how and why you might want to set a resistance not related to the numbers written down in the scenario.
Now, I think I percieve right: that Trotsky and I have similar prep vs in-game thinking issues when running RPGs. I find it sometimes almost impossible to make decisions in-game and end up doing more prep than (I think) others do. Certainly Jamie MacLaren thinks I do too much. These days I write a lot less but it's all prose with underlined words that are key. I also think up potential scenes that challenge the heroes' stances/commitment/beliefs etc - this is the hardest part. Thankfully the players provide vital clues in-game and sometimes even propose their own scenes.
Tim Ellis
The main problem is, though, that you can do all of this already with HQ1.
There is nothing about the current ruleset (or the Hero Wars ruleset come to
that) that prevents you from going through all the steps that Matthew talks
about.
- that's because they are narrativistic concerns. What I have been trying to
establish is the belief that HQ2 is soully concerned with those.
Tim Ellis
The current rules, however also support other, equally valid styles of play
(caveat: styles implies creative agenda. this is how I'm taking it for my
reply)
- this is a matter of opinion. To paraphrase Robin - "HQ2 is narrative, go
play MRQ if you want gritty"
- I think the problem is with the word "support"
, which appear to be being invalidated in the name of doctrinal purity.
- at the risk of saying something contraversial (me?): if you mix creative
agendas you end up with big problems. Whether or not you can play one agenda
with some kind of flavour of another is not altogether relevant, IMO. We
have cathartic experience of these problems in our gaming group.
Tim Ellis
I'd prefer the published rules (and support materials) to appeal to a wide
cross-section of the (gaming) public, rather than those with a specific
taste.
- published rules need to give clear indication of how they should be used
in order to get the designed outcome. we are not all game designers and do
not all have the ability to see how rules affect the experience. I'd hazard
a guess that most people can't read rules and see how they will impact the
overall experience. I find it pretty darned mind-bending.
Tim Ellis
I suspect in the end, just as the release of RQ3 lead to many people playing
RQ2.5, HQ2 will lead to many people playing HQ1.5 - Running games in the
"style" of HQ1, but using some or all of the rule changes from HQ2
This was always going to happen. One fact is: we are living in times when roleplaying is undergoing a revolution. Things are not as they were before. People who are interested in: fixing their dysfunction, adopting the new ideas, learning about all the new techniques etc etc will have widely differing points of view as to what each creative agenda is (and whether they even exist) so they (including real proper game designers) will feel the need to evolve the tools, methods and perspectives which we use to experience the hobby.
I think we should all at least try to play vanilla HQ2 before drifting away from it's design. So what if the pass/fail cycle is optional? It's the only thing printed in there as advice on how to do it. People new to roleplaying will grab it with both hands. It takes someone sure of their own convictions to set it aside because they have a better idea or don't need it's support.
Parting shot: it's the people with the baggage that are having the problems learning the new ways. these new ways are not hard to learn, they are just hard to convert to. I have two new players in my group and they took to it like the proverbial duck.
Powered by hypermail