> Tim Ellis
>> When I read (an earlier draft than the continuum release of) the
>> playtest rules, I came away with the impression that the pass/fail
>> cycle and relative resistances were an option. A way the game
>> *could* be played, not the way it *must*.
>
> - 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?
>
and
> Tim Ellis
>> I could see it was an interesting idea, and with the right GM and
>> Players it could indeed provide a great game.
>- this GM and players would need to adhere to HQ2's creative agenda,
> imho
People who want to adhere to HQ2's "Creative Agenda" certainly shouldn't be opting out. But I'm not convinced by the argument that his "creative agenda" should be the overriding concern of people more interested in playing the game than discussing role-playing theory.
> 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.
I think you might be right - at least in my case. But I can't magically lose all my years of baggage/experience. And while I *could* theoretically go out and find a whole group of neophytes to run games for, it is far more likely that I will be running games for people with a similar amount of baggage...
>
> Tim Ellis
>> The current rules, however also support other, equally valid
>> styles of play
> (caveat: styles implies creative agenda. this is how I'm taking it
> for my reply)
That's a shame. I'd rather discuss HQ2 than theory...
> - this is a matter of opinion. To paraphrase Robin - "HQ2 is
> narrative, go play MRQ if you want gritty"
I'm not at all sure that what I want is "Gritty" - and I know I'd much rather run HQ(1) than MRQ
> - I think the problem is with the word "support"
how about "enables"?
>
>> which appear to be being invalidated in the name of doctrinal
>> purity.
> - at the risk of saying something contraversial (me?): if you mix
> creative agendas you end up with big problems. Whether or not you
> can play one agenda with some kind of flavour of another is not
> altogether relevant, IMO.
I don't have a "Creative Agenda", nor do I have a problem with (the current version of) Heroquest. The HQ2 rules allow me to use material written for HQ1 without a problem.
> People who are interested in: fixing their dysfunction, adopting
> the new ideas, learning about all the new techniques etc etc will
> have widely differing points of view as to what each creative
> agenda is (and whether they even exist) so they (including real
> proper game designers) will feel the need to evolve the tools,
> methods and perspectives which we use to experience the hobby.
Which s why it's a real shame that the target market for HQ2 appears to be only those people who think that printing numbers is dysfunctional. In going from a Glorantha-specific set of rules to a generic set of rules, HQ seems to have narrowed down it's options rather than opened them up. From being a game which allowed different approaches it seems driven to follow a single theoretical model which we must all follow or else...
>
> 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.
>
I'm not new to roleplaying though. And I've never thought in the middle of a session "Gee, I wonder how tough this next encounter should be - if only there was some way of mehanically working it out." I have thought, on occasion "Damn, this next encounter as written is going to be too tough (or too easy), I'd better change it" - but not at every encounter, or even in every session. (And I'm fully aware that there are people who would prefer not to ever change it even in these circumstances).
>
>
Powered by hypermail