Actually, lest I have unduly stigmatised Mikael by implication in my rather sweeping characterisation, I should say I was thinking mainly of prior rounds of 'debate' on HW, in which both the arch-advocates and arch-detractors appeared, to me, to be 'hyping' the degree to which HW was either 'a revolutionary new RPG p******m', or 'a load of old "storytelling" wank', as they might respectively have it. A throbbing pain behind my right eyeball (latent Sense Chaos talent?) tells me that echoes of such are in danger of bouncing off the Digest walls again, but there one goes...
> My sense of adventure is greatly dispersed by looking up rules, charts
Funny you should mention 'charts'. ;-) Table-itis is an area in which HW actually rather repesents a retrograde step from RQ, in terms of Game Mechanical Clunk. (Though a modest sized one, and the only one that springs to mind.) Yeah, I know all you HW Ueberfen can already recite it in any desired direction, blindfold. ;-)
Actually, people who play RQ, love RQ to bits, and will give up playing RQ when hell freezes over, should really rejoice at the design decisions made in HW. As you were all not going to play HW _anyway_, the style of HW character sheets (for example) makes it all the easier to ignore the (subminal) intrusion of the game mechanics you'll abhore, and DWIM in RQ terms. Probably less painful than trying to reverse-engineer fatigue points back into ENC levels, run initiation level conversions in reverse and such like.
Pity the poor person who sees both systems in the 'worthy but imperfect' category, who has a much trickier decision to make...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail