>> >That said, I don't think the RQ fans who dislike HW feel
>> >that way because they don't understand it. I think they mostly
>> >know what it's trying to do and wish it were trying to
>> >do something else.
>>
>>You may here be referring to some specific statement I've missed, but
>>as a general comment, this crappy attitude that whomever dares to
>>criticise HW must, without question, revere and worship RQ is bloody
>>irritating.
>
>You're reading something into the above-quoted statement
>that I didn't say.
Well, you were the one who brought up the comparison. I agree you didn't directly criticise in any of the ways you mentioned on the grounds of any comparison between RQ and HW, but given the thread started as a request for clarification about HW, I don't see why you needed to bring RQ into it. Plenty of us would like to see more examples of play - it's the first game system I've seen where you need to discuss HOW to play out archery (to take one example) before you even decide whether it's a good way to do it! I don't want a game that does something else, I just want to know what this one is supposed to do, and how.
So far I've played about 8 games of HW, mostly as Narrator. As Narrator I felt happiest when the players failed to see the glaring holes I had left in the game where I couldn't figure out how the hell to do something, or notice that the way I had done just didn't work. As a player, I'm running an Animist, making up my own Spirit names (and you can't Improvise from Spirits), with no bow, so I can ignore the most glaring gaps. So far it's worked, but it's more through the satisfaction of navigating a minefield safely rather than enjoying the walk.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail