Re: Apples and entirely-hypothetical Oranges

From: Paolo Guccione <p.guccione_at_ociyVTNt1y1OjJLOjJY-kC4nWemBL2FvAGVLxiMJJ45zI7m-NiGiHK2O-nhbv6cK1>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:19:55 -0000

Aaaah, this is the non-politically-correct list, so I can unleash all my flame-starting ability, at last!

> The *brilliant* advances in HW/HQ are 1) the Mastery levels 2) NO more boring and useless lists of detailed skills descriptions 3) keywords/professions/character-classes/whatever are just a kind of meta-ability --- but TBH, **ALL** of these could easily be/have-been implemented into RuneQuest.
>
> The problem as I see it being *NOT* that HQ is a bad game in any way, but that it caters to one particular playing style ONLY -- whereas the Gloranthan gaming market past and present uses multiple playing styles. This is the basic reason why HW was a commercial failure in France for instance, basically because the playing style that it promotes is a very unpopular one among French gamers -- so that (demonstrably) perpetuating a niche gaming philosophy in the HQ rules = losing customers and money.

I could not agree with you more than I do. I have just two considerations to add:

1. in the improvement list, you forgot the ability to use Hero Points to alter die rolls or change the plot [this last one is not in HQ but is in Mythic Russia], and this one _was_ incorporated into RQ.
2. as everyone knows (but dares not say), RQ is now doing more to enlarge the Glorantha fan base than HeroQuest.

> I just fail to see ANY virtue whatsoever in publishing games that a significant section of your target audience will never want to play...

Well, persistence maybe....

[written non-capitalized so that no one mistakes the virtue for the RQ keywo... sorry, skill]