On 09/09/2012, at 3:28 PM, hcarteau_at_BDAucuBCqjwDtg9FvmApMb5kJWhEdBohCxWikoLnyjY0MsKIYM-qyxVlgvJGRtjRqHGnxLOqhA.yahoo.invalid wrote:
> You know the most important thing : what stories you want to enact. Now, are you big on ROLE, and go for HQ, or on PLAY, and go for RQ?
>
> HQ gives you quasi-total freedom to focus on the story. It allows you to improvise on the go every time these damn players go in unplanned directions. Some, however, do find game mecanisms a little dull. HQ requests good storytelling, and responding players.
I'd prefer to, rather than say that either game has an automatic win on roleplaying, say that HQ2 is a very solid narrativist game that rewards a game where the players have a very active role in creating the story, while RuneQuest is better for a game where the focus is on simulationist detail. But both can have plenty of roleplaying - just because the characters do not have as much influence over the plot doesn't mean there is no roleplaying. Think of a war story, for example, where the players have little control over their circumstances or situation, but do have to think about both the mechanics and the morality of the methods they choose to survive - RQ6 could be an excellent game for that sort of story. Or, for a more Gloranthan example, the Dara Happa Stirs campaign - quite a linear 'railroad' plot where the PCs have a limited part to play in a story where they are not the major players, but plenty of opportunity to roleplay.
>
> RQ gives you excellent, solid rules (I heard RQ 6 now includes personality traits, always a must),
Passions rather than personality traits. But definitely a very welcome aspect of the game.
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail