> HQ, by design intent, assumes that story telling is
> more important than all other aspects of RPGing.
All games choose areas to emphasize and areas to deemphasize; such decisions are inherent in game design. The only question is "what aspects are most important to this design" which drives what gets emphasized and what gets minimized.
>Greg, who is the leading
> spokesman for HQ has just suggested that if a player likes powergaming
> enough to disrupt a HQ game,
You are overstating the case. Greg's answer was generic to any gaming, not specific to HQ.
What do you do if one of the players doesn't like the game your playing, wants to play something else, and actively sabotages play?
>you should try to alter his gaming style or
> maybe even throw him out of the group.
the original last resort was:
G>politely tell one of their group---"we're playing a game you G>don't like for a while we'll let you know when we are playing G>something you like.
Which seems reasonable to me. Otherwise, you let one player exercise a heckler's veto over what the rest of the group wants to play, which seems even more unreasonable. If the heckler doesn't want to play Game X, that's fine, but it doesn't entitle the heckler to actively sabotage the game and ruin the entertainment that people who like game X are getting from playing it. If the rest of the group likes Game X, the heckler can either adapt to Game X, or find something else to do until the game is over.
>This promotes a perception that
> HQers's consider story telling the only important part of RPGing, and look
> down on others who enjoy simulation or powergaming.
Again, you're overstating your case. It was a generic answer to a generic question.
Grimmund
-- "Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Therefore: Knowledge corrupts."
Powered by hypermail