> I'm not saying this. I'm not implying this. You seem really intent on
> inferring it, which is your prerogative.
Certainly seems that way to me -
Your own words, from a message of July 27: "My impulse on special case armor rules is to *explain why they're more trouble than they're worth*" Emphasis mine.
"More trouble than they are worth" is a prejudicial statement. It gives the reader the feeling that if he *does* use them, then he's doing it "wrong".
> The actual stance is: "I don't think this rule works, for reasons X
> and Y. You may disagree, for reasons A and B. If so, don't play my
> way. Play your way! The correct way to play HQ is to customize it so
> that it's the game you and your group enjoy."
My problem is that you are giving me a choice between "your way" and "a piece of crap that you don't like". While you may not see it that way, I'm reading it loud and clear. I want: "If you want to do X, here are rules for it. If you'd rather do Y, here are rules." I don't want "I don't think these work well, but here they are as a sop to those foolish Simulationists that insist on playing my cool Narrative game." It's a style of writing - and I don't like that style. For a ruleset to make judement on what tools I use in what circumstances injects too much of the author into my game play.
You, as the author, have the option to leave out what you think isn't useful. But if you're going to include something, don't prejudice the reader against it.
> The current core rules manuscript rules out _nothing_ about the way
> the current HQ rulebook works. It does show you how to simplify the
> game in a number of ways, especially in other genres. It does nothing
> to tie the hands of the team that eventually creates the new Glorantha
> rules book. If they so choose, they can port over every single rule in
> the current version wholesale, and nothing they do will be
> incompatible with the core rules set. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It is the
> same game, presented differently, in a more modular fashion. It is not
> Robin Laws Heroquest. It is [Insert Your Name Here] Heroquest.
If you're telling me what *you* think works or doesn't by your use of "I don't think this works but here it is", it very much *is* "Robin Laws HQ." A true tool set does not make value judgements on the tools. "More trouble than they're worth" is a value judgement. I'd much rather not read anything like that in an RPG toolset.
> The thing I find particularly surreal about this little flare-up we're
> having is that we actually agree on the underlying issue--that you can
> do without the armor rules.
Yes, I agree with the intent; I am opposed to the presentation. Yes, *I* would rather not use them, but other people do. I object to the implied (by your own words) worthlessness of them.
RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad
R. Sabatini, Scaramouche
Powered by hypermail