[hw-rules] Re: Actual Rules Question!

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_5hl7xVgVQsbDzP0fXCiayR2GOqzhJbbJMI9S0_J2NpYo-93A2pMW1JoVHndiqmAgY2bNh3_X>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:52:51 -0800

>>> How do you handle it when one side has missles and some of another
>>> does not?
>>I have a sword, you have a bow.  How
>> much good is my sword going to do me? 

> I'm thinking about hidiing behind my shield when the arrows fly.
Ah, but I didn't say I had a shield, did I? OK, with a broad assumption, you might presume a swordsman ALSO has a shield, but what if I'm using a 2H sword?

> > I'm still having trouble getting my brain around why a guy who's
> > fought his way through a band of carls should be multiple TIMES more
> > effective afterward than before?
> >
> He's pumped, breathing hard and has the battle light in his eyes.
> Oh, I can see it. I've even, on rare occasions, been it.

Argh. I just fell into one of those paradigm gaps. I'm a wargamer at heart (number crunching realism and all that), and I'm reaching to even conceptualize the rationalizations inherent in HW combat. I can just barely do it, but the house of cards collapses when I'm confronted with such silliness. Yes, I know HW isn't meant to SIMULATE reality, but when it defies it, I have to just shake my head and start writing a "house rules" sheet, like I had for RQ.... :(

I simply can't see a system where the player is SEEKING combat (ostensibly risking life & limb) because the net result will leave them almost certainly more powerful than before. Even throwing reality aside, it kind of obviates the obligatory "pack of rabble henchlings working for the evil enemy" - standard stock for S&S fiction - since they would serve to STRENGTHEN the attacking good guys more than cripple them.             Received on Thu 02 Mar 2000 - 13:54:29 EET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:48:56 EET