Re: RQ v. HW v. HQ1 v HQ2

From: ttrotsky2 <TTrotsky_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:03:34 -0000


David Dunham:

> 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."

Well, true enough, but without a clear alternative, that's a rather moot point.

> >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?

Eh? How do you get that from what I said?

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

And if the game had substantial guidelines for play with pre-generated numbers, that wouldn't be a problem for me. But it doesn't (for sound and sensible reasons), so I've got nothing to work from.

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

I'm not saying they work for you; I understand that they do not. I am saying that they work for me.

-- 
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