>IMO, having social rules that resemble the
>combat rules of a game is almost too hideous to contemplate, no matter how
>good they are :-)
I commented:
> Actually, it's the other way around. Combat uses the same mechanics as every
>other type of contest.>>
Alex replied:
>I don't resemble Skippy, my Evil Twin; he resembles me... I think the
>sentiment is that an 'extended contest' of any type is similar to
>the 'feel' of a combat system, in the typical rpg.
and Trotsky replied:
>A rather semantic quibble, no?
Not entirely. It shows that combat isn't the primary focus of the game, but just one of many ways to infuse the game with drama and suspense.
HW's mechanics is used to resolve conflicts. All conflicts between people is basically a battle of wills (though the objects of the conflict, and the methods and means of achieving them may differ, of course). If there is no conflict, you don't need rules to determine who's will will prevail.
How do you handle a conflict in a manner that does not have the 'feel' of a combat?
Alex also said:
>> I wonder how many of the playtesters who have the complete drafts still
>> prefer RQ to HW. I doubt there's many.
>
>And... cue Mike Cule! You're probably right, actually, but this is
>a self-selecting constituency to some extent.
I know. I just wanted to point to the fact most of the HW 'evangelists' have had roughly a year's experience with the complete drafts, and that most of the HW detractors base their scepticism on rumours and fragments of the mechanics.
Powered by hypermail