Re: +1 per 10 (was Re: Big, Small, headaches....)

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:24:57 +0800

At 3:40 PM +0000 24/3/03, Jeff scribbled:
>> I'll second Dave here:
>>
>> Maybe the answer is for a bunch of rules-literate types (e.g. first
>> edition playtesters) to come up with a Pyramid article consisting
>of
>> *constructive* suggestions and examples aimed at making
>augmentation
>> more understandable and/or acceptable to people who may be
>concerned
>> about the maths.
>>
>While I think this is a good idea, I would hope such an article
>wouldn't be a set of 'HeroQuest is broken' rants, slated to appear
>even before the game is in print. I think that would be highly
>counterproductive to getting Glorantha out of the ghetto.

        I'm sure it would be a *constructive* set of alternative rules, aimed at those who recognise some of the problems but want to play HeroQuest anyway.

        Of course, I'm sure the authors of such an article would prefer the problems were not there at all, and were dealt with before the game hit print, but publishing a constructive article about how to fix them seems preferable to ignoring them and hoping no one outside this list notices them!

        Face it - if HQ stands or falls on the mathematical gamist soundness of its rules, and its appeal to those who care about such things, its already failed. Luckily, it doesn't - it stands or falls on the success of its innovative approach and its fantastic background. The (apparently not very large or important) group that both appreciate the games good points AND want the maths to work right I'm sure will be happy with some house rules to go with their books full of cool background and adventures, and happy to plug the games best points in any article about it.

	Cheers
		David (who knows nothing about the HQ rules except 

what has been mentioned on this list, and sincerely hopes they won't be broken at all.)