Not at all, Ian. :O)
I think the argument has been played out, and I'm wary of continuing to use terminology that in itself promotes discord. But suffice it to say that my own interests are not as 'resolved' toward one extreme of any given spectra, be it a ternary plot or whatever. I find this mix--which also varies--enjoyable. This mix, however, has been denigrated in recent discussions, with notion that a game that caters more specifically toward 'end-member' play is desirable.
I find great appeal in a product, any product, that knows what it wants to do and sets out at achieving it. That is why I would appreciate HQ2 on those merits. I do not think that coherency in thought, design and application, however, necessarily requires coherency as advocated in certain RPG models.
If certain models wish to push forward on an empirical basis ('actual play'), I'd rather they did not deny it in practice.
Ultimately, the core of the HeroQuest mechanic is a flexible, tiered [I almost missed a vowel out there, in what would have been an amusing slip] roll-under mechanic. This is remarkably adaptable. People--and I don't mean yourself, Ian--consistently confuse the nature of such mechanics with how they are packaged and used in a broader entity, HeroQuest the game.
I no longer subscribe to HQ-rules, so thankfully I no longer need to be warned against 'overconfidence' in my approach to HQ, or to be told to play RuneQuest. I'm not really that angry any more. Just contemptuous. Certain advocates might wonder why their views cause offence, even if they intend quite the opposite. Sadly, it doesn't take a genius to work that if you adopt thought that is by its nature antagonistic, you will antagonise people.
Stew.
Powered by hypermail