But there are two flaws, one is how long you can keep this up. I, for one, would find myself slipping quite easily into exchanging simple bettings of numbers for most resolutions, especially as I doubt many of my players could be bothered to come up with equally evocative descriptions. Eventually, I feel, people will slip back into the basic mechanics rather than the descriptions. A flaw with the GM and players to be sure, but a flaw that I can see happening - perhaps not to every playing group, but certainly to a large proportion of them.
Secondly, is that while simple to describe actions can be made lucid and interesting, such as combat, it becomes more complicated with more abstract conflicts, such as arguments, or conflicts that the GM has no knowledge about and therefore cannot give a good description of. Also, having seen just one playtest (note that I've seen only ONE playtest and wouldn't be so foolish to judge an entire system by that) I was a bit unsure about the abstraction of certain abilities into numbers, when I think they should be totally roleplayed. For instance, rather than having a character with Answer Riddles 4/16, as a GM I'd just ask a riddle and watch the player squirm. I suppose that is also a style of play, and not an actual "flaw" with the system, but I think you get my point.
I must note however, that I will still buy, maybe even play, Hero Wars when it comes out. I also think an RQ to Hero Wars mechanic would be a bit useless, the style of system is too different in my opinion. My campaign would be radically different if I used HW instead of RQ, and would not consider changing over (although I would consider running a seperate game using it)
All IMHO,
Nikk E.
Nikk Effingham
eng7nje_at_leeds.ac.uk
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/
"If absolute power corrupts absolutely
Where does that leave God?"
-- George Daacon
------------------------------
Powered by hypermail