>Because we want to play HQ, if we wanted to play D&D we would. I
>find it quite annoying to get comments like this, and they seem not
>infrequent in this list. I have a problem with how "I" play HQ, this
>list is for helping, yet I am seeing very negative feedback along
>the line of "oh you dont do it right, you are unworthy. please
>begone!" If I wish to play HQ with less narrative, or more emphasis
>on some mechanical realties then that is my choice. :)
And I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point is that HQ isn't the best tool for what you want. So, if you want to play it, you're going to have to change it to get it to do what you want. I come from a philosphical school where this idea is considered central. If you want to know more about it, then I suggest that you check out www.indie-rpgs.com. (and if you've already read up there, I'm really confused about where your opinions here come from).
>My response is "you DONT get lots of transfers in your game?" HQ
>combat at the mechanical level is ALL about transfers. Transfers WIN
>the combat... the entire idea of berserkers that work is that they
>get transfers to make them awesome... My players spend HPs to grab
>transfers when they present a viable option.
When using HP, yes, then I get a lot of transfers, too. So you're saying that your players go running out in front of archers shouting "shoot me" on the notion that they will then spend HP to ensure transfers? Again, the stylistic differences in what the system supports are just huge here.
That doesn't make you wrong. It means that you have more work to do in adjusting HQ to make it a game that will support what you want to do.
>As for opponents being weaker, no they dont have to be, but a
>trollkin is a trollkin... are you suggesting I beef up my trollkin
>progressively as my players develop? That doesnt sound right.
Again, that's the Sim argument. Why are they facing trollkin would be a better question. If the trollkin are too weak for them, then don't even roll, just use the automatic success rule, and narrate it as you see fit. Or, again, if you think that bows would be more effective in this situation, then make them so using all the rules there to do so.
> > From some perspectives expecting the system to match up
>with
> > reality isn't important at all, but I'll leave that consideration
>behind for
> > a moment, because it's obviously important to you, and to your
>players.
>
>I disagree entirely. The game models reality, reality is the norm
>and the basis on how we play. Without reality you dont have a basis
>from which to push into unreal moments. Any game system HAS to start
>with reality because that is what we all know and understand, then
>we bend and abuse it to accomplish our ends.
This is something that I'm not sure if I want to get into here. But, essentially, we're having some problems with definitions here. It should suffice to say that not everyone plays like you do, and just because you can't see their POV, doesn't mean that their method is incorrect. You're guilty of the error of which you accuse us above - dismissing our mode of play as impossible or incorrect.
Again, I'm not saying that your mode is wrong. Just that HQ wasn't designed to support it, and this means more work to fix it.
> > From another POV, you're saying that you think that archery should
>just be
> > more effective.
>
>Not at all, you are locked into your initial view that I am a D&D
>power gamer and cant break away from it. What I was saying was that
>there were some aspects of the HQ combat mechanics that did not
>model reality very well... or very cognitively... such that I had
>difficulty converting my experiences with how archery worked into HQ
>terms. I was asking for help not criticism.
That didn't seem to be the case. You seemed to be criticizing HQ. You never said, "How can I change HQ to make it play like I want?" but instead just said that there was a problem with how HQ handles some things. I'm just pointing out that it's not problematic if played within the spirit of how the rules were written.
As for help, all I can say is that you're going to need to radically redesign the game to get the effects you want. I mean, in the short-term, you can fix local problems with modifiers and such. But without changing your mindset at least a little, I think the system will continue to be problematic for you in other areas. Put another way, I think that you've been very lucky so far that the system hasn't produced many more problems for your style of play.
I'm not saying that you're a D&D powergamer, neccessarily. But you definitely are looking for the HQ system to simulate effects in an in-game manner, which, unless you take some dramatic steps, it doesn't even get close to doing.
> > Depicting Legolas would be very easy. He's probably about a 10W4
>archer
> > attacking 5W orcs. He's going to mow them down in droves. I can't
>imagine
> > what the problem would be.
>
>
>Yes he would be good at shooting 5w orcs, but he would get
>splattered against the 5w4 cave troll. Selectively diassembling my
>posts (as I am here...) is a good way to miss the overall point I
>was making.
I'm trying to point out that archery is no less powerful than any other power. Why would Legolas get splattered against the 5W4 cave troll any more often than somebody else with the same level of ability as he has in, say, Swordsmanship?
Your proposed solution of having "misses" have no negative effect on the shooter makes bows more powerful than other abilities for the same level. So, if you felt that the idea that they didn't use bows now was bad, will you feel alright when everybody uses bows because they get more potence for the amount of HP spent? This isn't a powergamer issue, any player would sensibly do this. HQ avoids this sort of thing, precisely because it makes non-powergamers seem like powergamers.
>But I will forgive you because you are obviously way out there in
>the narrative right wing and cant help yourself... :-)
Right, instead of responding to the points I've made, you're a victim of my elitist ways, and need not respond therefore (nevermind that I've been advocating in this very list for finding support for POVs similar to yours in a current thread, or the vast body of posts that I have online that contradict the idea that I'm a mode elitist). I haven't dismissed you in any way. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't have bothered to respond at all. You seem to be an intelligent person who's worth talking to, and so I responded to your critique of the game with counterarguments, and a clarification of the vision by which I see the game working.
Now, if you want help, then I refer you to all the parts of my posts in which I tried to help you, or the posts of others who've tried as well. If you find you have a particular problem with me, then please don't ignore anyone else around here - I'm hardly what you'd call an insider here, and my viewpoints are far from what most people think about HQ. So you're not being *attacked* by some elite group, or anything.
Mike
Powered by hypermail