realism, armor, and buckling swashes

From: Carl Fink (carlf@Panix.Com)
Date: Tue 18 May 1993 - 12:23:18 EEST (Robert Smith) writes:  

>It is easier to divide a movement of 3 by two than by three? In addition,
>for those who use hex grids, the scale is usually use 1m to the hex. Moving
>1.5 meters per strike rank becomes a real pain. It seems to me that it
>would be *simpler* to work in thirds, as far as the mechanics go.

  I misunderstood you somehow. You are correct - the math is easier with your system. Oliver?  

>OK, I'm open to suggestions here. Since players tend to be rational people,
>at least by their own definition of rationality, they are going to spend
>the majority of their time learning to do the most damage that they can with
>the least cost in training time. This always is some heavy duty weapon.
>Why bother learning how to kick and grapple, when these cause little damage
>and you always prefer to hit with your primary weapon? What actions of the
>GM can encourage players to act contrary to their interests (inflicting as
>much real damage as possible on a deadly opponent) without seeming arbitrary?

  Well, because (for instance) you can't carry heavy weapons openly in most major cities? Because weapons break/drop/can be snatched by whips? Because kicking someone in the middle of a fight with maces can be a surprise maneuver, giving +30%? (Which is why it's so effective in the _Three Musketeers_.) Because if you parry a Grapple attack with a weapon, the other person is now holding onto your weapon and can pull it away (especially useful on blunt-edged weapons like quarterstaves, but quite effective on shields)? Should I go on?    

>I agree that complexity is a problem, but that is what optional rules are
>for. For many of my critisism, the response has been that the GM and players
>should fix the inadequacies of the rules through role-play. That does not seem
>very satisfactory to me. The game system defines the physical reality of the
>world. Characters' action will conform to the reality created by the game
>system. That is what the game system is supposed to do: create the game

  Granted. I suspect this particular optional would belong in a magazine article published after RQ4, titled something like "realistic armor". I haven't seen anyone else among RQ4 playtesters comment about this particular problem, which means that the priority of including special arm and leg armor rules in the main game is probably low.  

>I certainly do appriciate Carl's promt response to my querries and I hope
>others will continue this thread.

  You're welcome. (johnjmedway) writes:  

>Interesting how this relates to how _players_ corrupt the gods, as well. Ever
>had a player say: "Hmm, it'd be neat to play a Kyger Litor, oh wait, they don't
>get Sever Spirit, like Zorak Zoran. I guess I'll play one of them instead."

>Picking cults for their spell lists - yuk!

  Actually, this makes perfect sense...I can certainly imagine the *character* deciding to join ZZ based on his magic, after all. Personally I prefer Kyger Litor, because that Counterchaos spell is terrific. No, wait, it's only okay. No, it's terrific again. No, wait....

Carl Fink C.FINK4 (GEnie) "If you can't laugh at yourself, then you can bet that everyone else is doing so." - Ed Johnston

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:30:48 EEST