Matthew Cole wrote:
>are you forgetting that there are girl-kids out there who hate that
sort of
>thing?
I don't find girl kids hate rules and order at all. Certainly not at the 6-9 range. They may get pressured to stay away from math but lots of specific rules about what things are supposed to be like still seems very common to me.
>I think this is an area of interest for the more geeky. It's up to
>us to teach the next generation that there is more to life than
munchkinism.
I'm going to assume you mean "the next generation of role players". And
also, munchkinism, assuming you mean "playing to win" is a fine and
noble tradition of humanity.
Now, being a dick isn't. (Well, it's a strong human tradition, not
really a noble one.)
Tactical gaming is great fun, it's just not what I want to do most of
the time.
>This is exactly what it aims to do. It's not like Spirit of the Century or
>Dogs in the Winyard which channel your actions in a more heavy handed way;
>it's more of the sort that teaches you how to do it and lets you be
your own
>master. If you go off-piste you will find the monsters that lurk there.
"off-piste" ? (Sorry, you geeked my inner francophone. *smile*)
I'm not sure if you are saying "Use HQ2 exactly as written or you'll be
sorry at the monsters" or "If you go off-piste in Dogs you will be sorry
about the Monsters".
I think a better description of what I am saying might be that I don't
want the focus of resolution to be so far removed from the immersive
experience as to abstract out the fun of genre emulation.
>I do my best to be as annoying as possible. Ask my wife!
*smile*
I'll take your word for it.
>Seriously though, it takes a bit of courage to stand up under such close
>examination and sometimes, in order to stand ones ground, one has to
try to
>curry support by recruiting converts.
Oh, I agree. I've fought the fight you're fighting here. Of course, some
people have no interest in playing that way because it is intensely
boring to them.
They far prefer playing something that is about "fight the monster, kill
the monster" and doing cool things. (One example only.) And there's
nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I like character arc playing, but I still want a swashbuckle or two when it's fun. I want to emulate genre as well. (So, if I remember my Forge-speak, I like a game with a Narrativist base with a strong Simulation sub-structure. Hybrid, but Narrativist core. I may be misremembering that.)
If HQ2 doesn't do that, it's not going to be fun for me, and I won't play it. Maelstrom, for instance, never worked for me, because I found the conflicts were abstracted out to the point where I never felt invested in them. A roll never felt exciting.
LC
Powered by hypermail