> >From: "Rob" <robert_m_davis_at_h...>
>
> >And in our group we have both creatures:
>
> >1. Rules dude who scours his sheet for any relevant, semi
relevant and
> >some down right irrelevant augments to any given situation.
Mike:
> This guy is often misdiagnosed. Put another way, all my players
scour their
> sheets to some extent looking for augments, and they're none of
them rules
> lawyers or "gamists" etc. Some of us wierdoes think that looking
for
> augments is fun.
Rob:
Guilty as charged! When I play I do this too!
> Rob:
> >2. The narrative gal who will pick an ability and maybe throw in
one
> >relevant augment, because lunars killed her mum or something!
Mike:
> I always wonder what "narrative" means in this context. In any
case, this
> could actually be several player types as well.
Sure. I am generalising the polarities we have in our group. There doesn't seem to be a middle way, so I have imposed one as I felt the game was suffering. The folk who were frankly not interested in looking for lots of augments would get frustrated at the 'scourers'. I also played in a 2 GM game, and when we faced each other for the finale an augment race commenced that was fun at first but did get a bit silly. The narrators (both fine fellows and excellent GM's) reigned us in and got the excellent scenario back on track!!
Of course, other games will vary.
Mike:
> >The solution I have found is to limit it to kit plus 2 or 3
augments. I
> >routinely suggest a further augment to narrative gal.
>
> I do cut people off, but only when they seem to be floundering. If
they're
> rattling off long lists, and they all pertain? So much the better.
Rob:
And you know what, I agree here. But only if the group dynamic
allows it.
> >Rob:
> >The reason for this is that it can be difficult to design
challenges when
> >you are not sure who will be dealing with it. Therfore it can be
too hard
> >or too easy.
>
Mike:
> I don't buy this, personally. First, just don't "design
challenges." Make
> them up as you need them. Second, they can't be "too hard or too
easy." HQ
> makes any level of opposition fun, IMO.
Rob:
> >I enjoy the gamist element of RPG's as well as prefering the
narrative flow
> >of a Heroquest game.
Mike:
> As you can guess, I'm not on board with this mode of play. Note
how you have
> to alter HQ to make it work with this mode.
Rob:
I write fairly loose and run a game off of bullet points. TBH we do very little dice rolling at all, but a heck of a lot of role playing. What I am really saying is it would be nice to have a game where people were augmenting in similar ways. That way its easier to plan. And yeah, I do see it as a game, and some stuff is designed to test the characters, whether it be emotionally, morally, magically or physically.
Regards
Rob
Powered by hypermail