>Your points make a lot of sense, but they're also based on an
>as-yet-unproven assumption that people really do want to play
>Storytelling-focussed games more than they do Combat-focussed games.
You don't have to choose between Storytelling and Combat. You can have both. With HW, combat can be storytold, and the told stories can be conflict-focussed.
>Inextricably tied to this is the rules-lite vs. rules-heavy issue. Will
>HW and storytelling, rules-lite RPG gaming win out over the despicable
>opposition?
HW isn't rules-lite. There's quite a lot of rules in the drafts. The difference is that, for once, combat-related rules don't hog 50+% of the book, and that the mechanics primarily aim to create a sense of drama and adventure instead of 'realistically' simulating actions and situations in the game world. As always, though, it's up to GMs and players to actually make the game fun and dramatic.
>a certain rules-heavy combat-friendly system...
The problem, as i see it, with RQ's 'combat-friendly' mechanics is that they're not designed to evoke drama, excitement and heroic action. Most of the fun and excitement in RQ combat situations is dispersed by having to focus on keeping track of numbers. The intention of RQ's mechanics is to simulate combat situations, and so the *simulation* itself hogs most of the player's attention which should be reserved for the *situation*. I'd say RQ is combat-hostile; combat situations shouldn't be an exercise in tactics and strategy, but an experience of dramatic action. But then again i'm not a wargamer.
Powered by hypermail