>I don't have a problem, rather I was having the feeling that I was
engaging the rules in a non-orthodox manner, and was wondering about
if other people consider the orthodox position clear and play by it,
and to a lesser degree is they have their own interesting heresies.
What if it's not orthodox? Is it fun? Isn't that the only thing that matters?
Here's a zen moment for you. Just how many HQ players are there in the world? I don't know, do you? I can tell you this, it's not many. Saying that there's an orthodoxy when your game is the equivalent of gnosticism in terms of adherents to begin with, seems a bit strange to me at times.
When I used the word Heresies in my essay it was kinda to just point out that others might have some differing perspectives. Then Greg said I should call it "Not Heresies" or something...
I often advocate for play of the rules pretty close to as written. This is, in fact, for two reasons. First, I think the rules work pretty well without much modification (that's been my experience in play). Second, I find that it's often easier to adhere to a single text than have to remember all of one's own modifications. I used to do that with (of all games) Rolemaster, and by the end it looked more like GURPS than Rolemaster... that was a nightmare, and the game was really no better than when I'd started. And only when we could figure out whatthehell rules we were actually playing with that wee (my players hated me for that). That was a hard lesson to learn.
When I find rules that work as written for me, I'm pretty ecstatic to have them as a solid reference for play. Buy that's just me.
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail