RE: HQ still doesn't make much sense was RE: Eurmali

From: Tony Davis <gallows_brother_at_...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT)


Well, I am very interested in storytelling. I like to play my games pretty loose. My D&D games are loosely told as well. But if you're going to have a system, it should mean something. I always thought that it was a good thing to become a Wind Lord. In this system, it's better to be some guy who kinda worships Orlanth and concentrates on his talents. I am finding that for the most part I'd rather just not use the system at all... I end up rolling dice just to look busy and just narrate what I think would happen. Having a fight where you can't tell if someone is wounded is strange. And what about permanent damage? How do you determine if someone has lost something permanently? Do you give them back a hero point if they lose their relationship with their father? How do you determine if they have, indeed, lost that relationship.

It seems like the system is too simple or too complicated. If your players can handle a completely arbitrary GM style or need just a little illusion to feel like they have some control, this is a good, but not the best, way to do it. If your players want to be able to count on their abilities being able to do things in a semi-quantifiable way, I just don't see HQ having any chance of making that happen.

Don't get me wrong. I like HQ. It seems to have a system in there somewhere. It's just that every time I run a game, it feels like I'm improvising the entire thing and making up rules as I go along. If I have to make up all the rules, I might as well just make them all.

t.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Powered by hypermail