And I think it failed because it tried. Ultimately that grasp for simulationism weakened the final product. Modifiers and special rules to help simulate 'reality' created a tension with the story first attitude of the rest of the game. It was incoherent to that regard.
If there is a trend in gaming it is to coherence - D&D 4.0 is more coherent. HQ2 is more coherent.
> In this particular respect, it's really something that I think
should be held up as a splendid example for other games to follow.<
Not to me. To me it is an example of where you can err by not understanding that you should not try to please two masters. In many ways HQ1 is more flawed than HW.
> I understand why it was done - as Ian says, a lot of people *will*
prefer HQ2, and why shouldn't they have a system that works for them?
But, on a personal level, 'disappointment' sums my feelings up. But
you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...<
Well no one can pry HQ1 away from you if you prefer it. But I would recommend breaking away from a mixed apporach if you can. You might even want to look outside RQ to say Burning Wheel, which I think is a better offering than MRQ for those who like gritty play.
I would recommend to anyone who like HQ that they look at games like Primetime Adventures, Houses of the Blooded, My Life With Master, In a Wicked Age to compare against
Powered by hypermail