From: Mikael Raaterova (ginijji@telia.com)
Date: Fri 16 Apr 1999 - 13:00:18 EEST
Brian in response to Dan McCluskey:
>Your points make a lot of sense, but they're also based on an
>as-yet-unproven assumption that people really do want to play
>Storytelling-focussed games more than they do Combat-focussed games.
You don't have to choose between Storytelling and Combat. You can have
>Inextricably tied to this is the rules-lite vs. rules-heavy issue. Will
HW isn't rules-lite. There's quite a lot of rules in the drafts. The
The problem, as i see it, with RQ's 'combat-friendly' mechanics is that
both. With HW, combat can be storytold, and the told stories can be
conflict-focussed.
>HW and storytelling, rules-lite RPG gaming win out over the despicable
>opposition?
difference is that, for once, combat-related rules don't hog 50+% of the
book, and that the mechanics primarily aim to create a sense of drama and
adventure instead of 'realistically' simulating actions and situations in
the game world. As always, though, it's up to GMs and players to actually
make the game fun and dramatic.
they're not designed to evoke drama, excitement and heroic action. Most of
the fun and excitement in RQ combat situations is dispersed by having to
focus on keeping track of numbers. The intention of RQ's mechanics is to
simulate combat situations, and so the *simulation* itself hogs most of the
player's attention which should be reserved for the *situation*. I'd say RQ
is combat-hostile; combat situations shouldn't be an exercise in tactics
and strategy, but an experience of dramatic action. But then again i'm not
a wargamer.
- -
Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 19:48:09 EEST