Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800


Jeff

>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.

Right -- in HQ1, published (or Narrator-generated) stats were ALWAYS wrong. Using them would give you bad results either as simulation or narrative.

Trotsky

>the Pass/Fail Cycle is one of the things that I
>like least about HQ2.

Luckily for you, this text appears in boldface in the rules:

"Always remember that the Pass/Fail method of resistance assignment is a fallback measure."

>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.

So the real problem is not that the game isn't fun, but the rules used to make it fun offend you?

Here's another quote from HQ2: "Your own experience as a Narrator should be granted
greater weight than the following set of guidelines."

But Jeff and I have enough experience as HQ1 Narrators to know that pre-generated numbers flat out don't work in a campaign.

-- 

David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html

Powered by hypermail