For some players this is golden advice, others don't like it at all however. I have one player in my regular group who find the whole narrativist, 'make up appropriate in-game instances of the generic mechanical penalties' aspect of HQ very alienating - I'd classify him as a 'simmy immersionist', he likes there to be a sense of the world pushing back onto his character in a way that he can seperate from the whim of the GM (or even the whim of the at table consensus) - I think he regards such negotiations as cheating in some way; certainly they cheat him of the 'being there' aspect of the game that is a large part of why he roleplays.
The point I'm approaching, in my crabwise fashion, is that HQ might (emphasis might) not be the right game for Sarah's group. That's not to say that they should give up on it straight away - there's nothing to stop you playing HQ is a very hardcore, simulationist way for instance, or they might find that going with the narrative flow (as subtly encouraged by the HQ rules) is actually a lot of fun and helps feed back useful alternative techniques to their other games. But they should be prepared to consider that HQ might not actually ring their bell, game-wise.
Regards
Luke
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Powered by hypermail