>- the HQ2 book does give the option but I'm saying it's a mistake to
opt out
>from the beginning. I hope I was clear on my reasons why?
Actually, you have sounded more like opting out for another approach, one which now even you admit is explicitly brought up as an option in the rulebook, is *wrong*.
>I think that the ideal person to start playing HQ2 is someone who hasn't
>done roleplaying before. I think the problem that you, Trotsky and I are
>having is that we have all this trad RPG baggage that makes us think
we need
>such things as numbers.
A counter argument would be that we would like people who already like RPGs to play as well, rather than having to only recruit new players.
>Now, I think I percieve right: that Trotsky and I have similar prep vs
>in-game thinking issues when running RPGs. I find it sometimes almost
>impossible to make decisions in-game and end up doing more prep than
>(I think) others do. Certainly Jamie MacLaren thinks I do too much.
These days
>I write a lot less but it's all prose with underlined words that are
key. I
>also think up potential scenes that challenge the heroes'
stances/commitment/beliefs etc - this is the hardest part.
See, I find that the easiest part. Mind you, I have players who long before hearing any role-playing theory embraced the "narrativist" idea that there should be a Premise to the character. Because of this, they have often built in not only neat character conflicts but embedded some kind of question about the nature of their character. (My Unfettered Space game, indefinitely in limbo as the players and I are on opposite countries: "Do you fight for an ideal now that the easy focus of war is over and the messy reality of implementing it is in place?", "Freedom or Family?", "How far will you go to keep your secret?" "If you were created as a weapon, whose weapon are you?") It is thus trivially easy for me to put them in situations that button push. Better yet, they *actively* seek out ways to get their buttons pushed. As you say, the players provide their own, if you're lucky.
But even apart from that, most of my best games over history have been largely winged out of a few interesting ideas and letting the players go nuts and reacting to them. (In numerous systems.) I expect I will like HQ2 for the ability to just wing resistances, and hopefully a resolution system that supports that in more involved contest series. Other systems, I always preferred ones I could whip up stats in moments if I didn't have them. Marvel Super Heroes, for example, was a lovely one for just throwing together stats in a heartbeat. D&D 3E was a nightmare because of the math involved, and you needed massive banks of numbers.
>- that's because they are narrativistic concerns. What I have been
trying to
>establish is the belief that HQ2 is soully concerned with those.
And I think what they are saying is that HQ1 struck a balance between different approaches that they preferred. A solely narrativist game is of little interest if it means no more support for the mode of play they prefer.
>(caveat: styles implies creative agenda. this is how I'm taking it for
my reply)
>- this is a matter of opinion. To paraphrase Robin - "HQ2 is narrative, go
>play MRQ if you want gritty"
Narrative vs "Gritty" is not the only issue.
>- I think the problem is with the word "support"
>- I'm told you have to rewrite it in sim terms to be able to play it sim.
>- at the risk of saying something contraversial (me?): if you mix creative
> agendas you end up with big problems.
I remain unconvinced of this. Obviously, so do others. Thirdly, even if you buy this, a system can be capable of supporting more than one creative agenda, and as long as you aren't mixing creative agendas *at the table* you will be ok.
The aforementioned Marvel Super Heroes, for example. You could play quite Sim. You could also play quite Gamist - just throw down 4-colour fights. I think it wouldn't even be too hard to take the basics of that system and make it quite narrative. But leaving it to Gamist vs Sim - as long as the players and GM were all interested in Sim, it *wasn't a problem*. If everyone was being Gamist, *it wasn't a problem*. It only became a problem when you tried to play both at the same time.
>Whether or not you can play one agenda
>with some kind of flavour of another is not altogether relevant, IMO.
Umm... why? It seems to be what people are asking about.
> We have cathartic experience of these problems in our gaming group.
I don't even know what this means.
>- published rules need to give clear indication of how they should be used
>in order to get the designed outcome. we are not all game designers and do
>not all have the ability to see how rules affect the experience.
But most of us DO have a decent of idea of how we like to play.
>I'd hazard a guess that most people can't read rules and see how they
will impact
>the overall experience. I find it pretty darned mind-bending.
You are not everyone.
>I think we should all at least try to play vanilla HQ2 before drifting
away
>from it's design. So what if the pass/fail cycle is optional? It's the
only
>thing printed in there as advice on how to do it. People new to
roleplaying
>will grab it with both hands. It takes someone sure of their own
convictions
>to set it aside because they have a better idea or don't need it's
support.
Didn't this whole thing start with "some people want numbers in their
scenarios"?
That's not the same thing as "I will not use the pass/fail cycle".
(Even if it is related.)
Also, again, many people *are* sure of their convictions about such things.
>Parting shot: it's the people with the baggage that are having the
problems
>learning the new ways. these new ways are not hard to learn, they are just
>hard to convert to. I have two new players in my group and they took to it
>like the proverbial duck
Remember that bit I said about zealotry? That whole last bit has that sound. "I have discovered the true way, and you should convert. It is only the baggage of your past lives that keep you from understanding the revelation this book has brought."
First off, a lot of those elements were there in HQ1 to unlearn.
Secondly, "this game is for new people, if you have previous RPG
baggage, you will have difficulty" doesn't seem very inviting to people
who have played a long time, since those are presumably people one wants
to still buy products.
Thirdly, the complaint isn't "We don't understand HQ2, it scares and
confuses our old RPG brains that have spent so long in the heresy of
Simulationism", it's "We liked this system. It is being revised, and in
its revision, it is removing something that we find useful and practical
from all future supplements. Now, to play in the world we like
(Glorantha) we will have two choices of games, both of which will
require converting the published material into a form we can find
useable, which makes our lives more difficult." (At least, this is how
I seem to read it.) And this seems particularly annoying to people who
see accommodating their needs (numbers/benchmark) as quite simple.
LC
Powered by hypermail