>
>> I agree the rules as presented are bereft of any
>> internal solutions, read as printed they are boring
>> and repetitive.
>> This, of course, appears to be a deliberate design
>> philosophy, but hopefully HW2 will give more guidance
>> and examples to help.
>
>In my opinion, this stark bareness of the rules makes the game better
>in the long run because, once you get into the swing of it, you can
>describe the effects in a much more rich way.
I agree in principal, but there are a lot of places - missile combat, all-or-nothing feats, etc. where there are NO guidelines and no examples. 'Getting into the swing of it' can easily mean screwing up games and putting people off playing. Rules should always be playable 'out of the box', even if they're not perfect, and HW1 has some notable gaps there. Not to make it unplayable, but certainly to greatly steepen the learning curve.
>In our campaign, we have no house rules that affect the operation of
>magic in extended contests (that I can remember anyway) and yet we
>have a lot of fun.
But every time someone finds a good way to use magic (or any other ability), and one that will work again, that becomes part of the players' 'toolkit'. You may not call it a 'House Rule', but it's an addition to the printed rules.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail