> - what I wanted to communicate is that this extra work is
> unnecessary. If
> Trotsky (or yourself) had completed the example I started, I believe
> you might have seen this.
There was an example I was supposed to complete? Aww, man, I obviously seriously misunderstood your post! I'll go back to have another look at it now.
> - the HQ2 book does give the option but I'm saying it's a mistake to
> opt out
> from the beginning.
Speaking for myself, it's not that I haven't tried the HQ2 way of doing things. It's just that I didn't enjoy it. I don't think that's "opting out from the beginning" in the way that you mean it.
> 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?
Yes, if Tim saw the same version I did.
> can you objectively surmise as to why it was removed?
I'd imagine it was felt to compromise the integrity of the product in some way. Which I can sort of understand, given HQ2's stated aims as a game (which are quite clearly stated in the intro).
> - I think that the ideal person to start playing HQ2 is someone who
> hasn't
> done roleplaying before. I think the problem that you, Trotsky and I
> are
> having is that we have all this trad RPG baggage that makes us think
> we need such things as numbers.
One man's "trad baggage" is another man's "personal experience", I'd wager :)
>
> 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 usually just write down the numbers (attached the Spoon-Playing ability, or whatever it might be), but the idea seems much the same.
> - that's because they are narrativistic concerns. What I have been
> trying to
> establish is the belief that HQ2 is soully concerned with those.
No argument on that front. Disappointment, yes, but not argument.
> - this is a matter of opinion. To paraphrase Robin - "HQ2 is
> narrative, go
> play MRQ if you want gritty"
There's two problems with that statement, though. Firstly, "gritty" is not the only alternative to the style of HQ2 - I certainly wouldn't call my games gritty. Secondly, it doesn't work too well for those of us who don't like MRQ, either. (Maybe because it's too gritty, who knows?)
> - I'm told you have to rewrite it in sim terms to be able to play it
> sim.
I'd agree that this is so.
-- 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