>both HW detractors and HW
>defenders seem to advance the proposition that it's Utterly Different
>a type of game from (say) RQ. Yes, there's a difference in there
>someplace, but I don't see how one can paint it in such hideously
>stark terms as either set of combatents do.
I definitely hope i didn't paint any Utter Differences in hideously stark terms. I mainly presented my own attitude to gaming, not any inherent qualities of HW. If anyone was pissed off, the blame lies with me, not HW.
HW is different from RQ, sure, but not on any paradigm-shift level. HW is designed for creating dramatic action and a sense of adventure. RQ was designed for realistic simulation (and, as all such endeavours must, failing at it, IMO). No surprise then that the mechanics differ.
Having played HW for roughly a year now it has become painstakingly clear that HW suits *my* gaming style far better than RQ ever did. Gamemastering a combat between the PCs and, say, a horde of screaming trollkin in RQ and HW are quite different experiences. In HW i can focus almost entirely on making the situation interesting and dramatic for the players. In RQ i'd barely have time for anything else than number-crunching.
My sense of adventure is greatly dispersed by looking up rules, charts and stats, calculating modifiers and keeping track of various numerical details. Combats are life-and-death situations and could generate lots of suspense, but in RQ they often deteriorate to endless series of parried attacks and keeping track of numbers on the character sheet.
And when it comes to 'community integration' and handling of social situations, well, RQ don't have much of that, has it?
That's my opinion anyway. HW is a spanking good game for adventuring in Glorantha, and hopefully all HW-sceptics and RQ-fanatics will come to realize that too. Nuff said already.
If anyone feels like lambasting me for my views, go ahead.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #533
Powered by hypermail