> So, those of you in the know about these kinds of things: Am I off
> track here? Is this tied up with the whole narrativist v.
> simulationist debate?
By 'this', you're referring to the Pass/Fail Cycle and its implications, yes? If so, I'd say that this is, indeed, core to the whole debate, and that the Pass/Fail Cycle is one of the things that I like least about HQ2.
Not that I don't want a good mix of narrativist elements in my game, alongside the more sim stuff, but the P/FC is a step too far for me; it's when it gets introduced that the game stops being fun for me as a GM. As a player, at least in the two games of HQ2 I played at cons, I don't find it so noticeable, although I suspect it might become so in an ongoing campaign. Equally, I get the impression (and I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the P/FC is core to why the "undiluted narrativist" players enjoy HQ2 so much.
There are other things I dislike about the current draft of HQ2, some of which very much do affect my enjoyment as a player, and which may or may not make into the final version. But they are less obviously narrativist than the P/FC.
-- 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