Jane:
> Unlike the sample PCs in the rule-book, then? Who have left
> their own disparate communities, make no attempt to join
> another one, …
Chris/Bankuei:
> I have to agree with the idea that the examples presented in
> the book are poor examples for capturing HQ play
I have to agree too, even though the examples are good at getting many points across and IMO have been nicely written and tied together.
It's OK to play wandering-rootless-party style play. But you can do that in most RPGs, even if not the same way, so players come to HQ understanding that sort of play. Unfortunately there is a strong chance that they *only* understand that sort.
As we know, one of the things that HQ provides that's really important is the ability to use relationships to make the PCs part of a web of communal ties. This is fairly unusual in an RPG and I can't think of any mainstream ones that handle this sort of thing. Hence its something people who have played other RPGs will find very easy to miss or not understand the potential of.
Unfortunately the examples collude in concealing something that should have been writ large, underlined, wrapped round a brick and thrown through every readers window.
> [After reading Ron Edwards'] examples of "what play was about",
> I read the book and realized that actually capturing the
> Gloranthan feel of play requires selective reading of the book.
> And its rather sad, because the core mechanics, without the hedging
and the humming of the examples and scenario advice are perfect to
producing it.
The HQ book has lots of good advice in it. None the less I feel my appreciation of the possibilities have come primarily from two major sources.
The first was King Of Dragon Pass. I don't suppose I need to explain this. (http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp in case there are any lurkers unfamiliar with it).
The second was the Forge and the whole indie games thing. That it should take discussions about Ron Edwards' game Sorcerer, James West's game The Pool and others to bang home what's possible with HQ is surprising. That Ron Edwards and others who have their own games to market have pushed HQ so hard is even more surprising.
It was not till Forge members started to drift here that I saw the traditional gloranthan crowd starting to discuss the same issues in anger. Which makes me think that the Issaries crew did not *fully* appreciate the excellent system that had been given by Robin Laws.
(The Forge is at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ but IMO you cant just dip into it and expect to get a lot out. Though the HQ forum http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewforum.php?f=13 is mostly intelligible without reading around).
One of the games that gets name checked occasionaly as an ancestor to the new wave of narrativist friendly games is Greg's Prince Valiant. Can anyone comment on this?
Powered by hypermail