Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Other mail archives: !!!!!!> Visit the Search Engine of Lhankor Mhy <!!!!!!

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:25:02 -0000

Chris, I am on the same page as you. David Dunham and I found during the course of running several hundred HQ1 games that we would set the resistance level for a contest AFTER the players had come up with their augments.

> Now here's the thing that really convinces me that HQ2 is a good
thing: It seems to me that its approach would make it much easier to publish gamable materials. For example, the author of a series on wherever wouldn't need to figure out whether this culture's big darkness god is a 10w6 god vs. the 8w7 fire god. All the author has to say is that the culture's two biggest gods as a darkness god and a fire god. That's loads easier. For one thing, you don't have to rigirously play-test the numbers!

I have written a large, interlinked set of scenarios for the Sartar Book. HQ2 was much easier to write for. In some cases I set a specific resistance level for an obstacle, in other cases I just refer to the Pass/Fail cycle or the needs of the gaming dynamic.

Jeff