> Although you and I agree on how HW works, I just don't think that
> saying things like this is either usefull or true.
Probably a failed attempt to get my point across?
>I think HW tracks
> such things just as much as any other game does. Ok, so it's all
> subsumed into an AP pool, but that no diferent than the way
> factors in RQ are subsumed into skill percentages, or Hit Points.
What I thought people were objecting to was the lack of (what they perceived as) realism provided by, for example, RQ's Hit Location system. Objectively "You loose 3 hp in your Right Leg" is just as "realistic" as "You loose 12AP", but, especially for people to whom the RQ hit location mechanic was a positive selling point, the latter may, on the face of it seem a retrograde step (which, I think, is where the association with D&D game from).
Since, as David Dunham pointed out in a previous reply, HW is modelling the Drama, rather than the "mechanics" of the contest, I don't see this as being a problem.
> At the end of the day, tables are made up by people just as much
> as on-the-spot modifiers, and I don't see that either of
> them is blessed with any special inherent 'realism'.
>
True, but (and I am as guilty as anyone else) people tend to think of
published rules as "official" and on the spot modifiers as being
entirely at the whim of the GM. You are probably right therefore,
that my arguing that you don't need "detailed" combat resolution
(Rolemaster Critical tables?) because you can use the descriptions
and AP exchange is not very useful. It's also, as Nick pointed out,
getting very concerned with "sharp pointy things" so I'll shut up,
leaving this final message
"HW Works - unless you expect it to be RQ..."
Powered by hypermail