For my part, Chris, I wouldn't worry too much about that (or, less politely: ignore most of what you read). To mind, Jeff was on the money with his comments earlier. I'm not against people seeking to intelligently consider and discuss roleplaying games--quite the contrary. If it enables people to have more fun, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, it rapidly attracted so much baggage and misunderstanding that it seems to do more harm than good.
As an example: RQ is commonly trotted out as 'simulationist game' [sic]; HeroQuest, in opposition, as a 'narratavist game'
This is wholly disingenuous.
If you take the terminology as originally envisioned, then it is clear that--per era, thought and execution--HQ in a sense caters for 'simulationist' play as much as RQ. That's the whole point. Was HW/HQ written simply so that Gloranthaphiles could put on their kaftans and play these 'new' games with the cool kids? No. Central to HW/HQ's entire formulation is the notion that it--at least to some-- offers a better game model of Greg's Glorantha.
The central problem is that the thematics of 'narratavist play' are often taken as varying from notions of realism and plausability. But in (at least some folks' perceptions of) Glorantha, perhaps more than any other setting, these thematics--often story-driven, varied, subjective, local, parochial, self/group-centric, call them what you will--are reality.
The whole argument goes back to perceptions of Glorantha itself, and is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Not exactly the best foot for debate...
It is not helped by the frequently pejorative manner in which 'simulationist play' is portrayed, including banal examples of overly mundane task resolution. The association of RQ--and many other systems--with 'simulationist play' largely comes down to one aspect: combat. Given that aspect is typically given an asymmetric importance in many older systems, this is not exactly unfair. But it is misleading. Jeff's comment on much of roleplaying's wargaming roots and its driving perception is very apposite.
In my view, a considerable problem in this whole debate and RPG is the overabundance of technically and/or determinisim-oriented individuals in its development. And it shows. This is especially pertinent when you consider the overly-systemised and deterministic phenomenon that is popular military history that, ultimately, underlies much of RPGs' emerging development. Everything has its box.
Is rolling RQ's Orate skill more 'realistic' than framing that challenge in HQ? Of course it isn't. As someone of both a Sciences and an Arts and Humanities background, I find HQ's open, flexible, augmentable system is a far more appropriate and plausible method of outlining conflicts in a whole plethora of activities. I find it *more realistic*, when others seemingly interpret it as hand-waving and irresolute (and thus less applicable to 'simulationist play').
Too often this debate confuses notions of 'crunch' and 'chrome' with elements of the whole GNS debate. The problem is that there's a difference between 'core elements of the HQ system' and the notion of 'HQ the game'. I don't deny that HeroQuest as a game--its system as packaged and presented in a broader framework, with intent and explanation--is tuned more towards 'narrativist play'.
But that is not the only way in which it can be used. Many of those of who enjoy what others might call 'simulationist play' find the core elements of the HQ system very appealing on that level. Do many of us also like and use the elements of HQ that might aid 'narratvist play'? Sure. We just like to play with a slightly firmer notion of 'background Glorantha' which to an extent diminishes the number of 'narrativist choices' we make in play.
We do it because we enjoy it, and we find it works for us. And quite frankly find assertions that we're fooling ourselves annoying.
Stew.
Powered by hypermail