> It's also plain to me that we play differently from
> a lot of people.
Your description below sounds quite similar to the HQ/HW I've been in, both FTF and PBEM.
> Our games, .. do often include a lot of
> set-up and discussion on how to cope with whatever
> problem has cropped up. Sometimes our characters
> would really have the time to do that; sometimes
> they wouldn't.
Yep. We tend to rationalise the later by saying that our PCs know each other and the universe they're in better than the players do, so much of the OOC conversation would be conveyed by a few seconds of thinking about previous conversations, a raised eyebrow and a hand signal.
> As was said in the last HQD, this is a game for
> heroes. That, at heart, may end up being the crux
> of it. Does our group want to play heroes?
It isn't compulsory. It's just possible. Which, let's face it, it wasn't under RQ rules.
> When I look
> back on 25 years of gaming, the stories that come to
> mind first are not the combats, but firstly, real
> roleplaying, and secondly, the clever ways that the
> players have used rather limited resources to solve
> open-ended problems. I'm not saying that this can't
> and doesn't happen in HQ, just that the emphasis on
> drama in the rules seems so great that this approach
> is less valued.
If anything, I'd say it's happened more to me in the HW/HQ games I've been in than in the RQ ones. Having all those non-combat skills down on the sheet, and being able to use augments and improvisations, not just straight "climb" or whatever, makes for much more interesting use of the available abilities.
Powered by hypermail