I understand that you believe this, and that HQ1 does not meet your needs. But I strongly disagree with your assessment, and what you see as 'creating a tension' I see as 'nicely complemeting'. It seems that there just aren't enough people singing HQ1's praises these days, and I find that sad.
> If there is a trend in gaming it is to coherence - D&D 4.0 is more
> coherent. HQ2 is more coherent.
This is very true and, for me, very disappointing; its a trend that cuts out a large chunk of the audience. Of course there is a place for these more 'focussed' systems (I don't think I'd agree with the use of the term 'coherent' here), but there is also a place for the mixed approach, and that seems to be being ignored - for what seem to be purely ideological reasons.
Surely you don't deny, for example, that there are many people who prefer D&D3 to D&D4?
> > 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.
This, it seems to me, is where the flawed ideology comes in. The idea that there are only two possible masters (or three, if one counts gamism) lies at the root of these more focussed games. I prefer a particular blended mix of simulationism and narrativism, and I'm sure there are many more people who prefer yet a different blend than I do.
Let me try and put it another way: if HQ1 is such a failure of design, why do *you* think that I prefer it?
> In many ways HQ1 is more flawed than HW.
Now, HW, I will agree, was flawed. At least, it is from my perspective, although there may be someone out there who feels otherwise. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that HQ2 is just as flawed as HW, but in the opposite direction. This is what I mean when I say that, for me, HQ2 was a 'step too far'.
And yet, I'm not saying that HQ2 is flawed in any sort of objective way. It sets out to do something, its quite up-front about what that something is, and it succeeds at doing it brilliantly. It just doesn't happen to be a something that I want.
I'll say it again: I believe that HQ1 is an example that other games should follow. Not every other game, of course, but that doesn't it isn't a good example of a particular style of play.
> Well no one can pry HQ1 away from you if you prefer it.
Very true. But - and this is where the disappointment comes in - they can stop producing supplements that fit well with it.
> But I would
> recommend breaking away from a mixed apporach if you can.
Why would I want to break away from something I enjoy to do something that I know, from actual experience, I enjoy less?
> You might
> even want to look outside RQ to say Burning Wheel,
I admit I'm not familiar with Burning Wheel, though a look through reviews on the web does not give me the impression that I'd like it much. Remember, if I were in the market for a new game system, I'd be looking for something that strikes the same sort of balance that HQ1 does... I'm really not getting that impression from Burning Wheel. But, as I say, I haven't actually read it, so I could be wrong.
> which I think is a
> better offering than MRQ for those who like gritty play.
But I *don't* 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
Judging from a quick look at some reviews, the only one of those that sounds interesting is Houses of the Blooded - which, unlike MLWM and PTA, I'd never heard of before. And that seems to be rather narrow in its focus, not something I'd want to use as a general engine for Gloranthan gaming. (If that's what you were suggesting, which you may not have been). Nonetheless, I will check out HotB in more detail, albeit not as a replacement for HQ1.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail