From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 14 Oct 1993 - 16:07:40 EET
I suppose either you like this or you don't. I like the idea of godlike spirits having a hierarchy minions to defend them against packs of "weakling idiot spirits" (like Mundane rulers would have). I thought the potential politics would make the SP more interesting. If godlike spirits can just sit on the spirit plane being huge & oblivious & invulnerable to the throngs of lesser spirits then there is no real need for them to have spirit minions. No politics, just anarchy. (Not that I'm particularly averse to anarchy; it just doesn't make a very good roleplaying setting:-)
>Leaving world balance aside, it is similar to the way that one person
>can defend against as many spells as are cast against him, but can
>only cast one at a time.
This is a reasonable analogy, but it's not the only one. You could draw an analogy with real (melee) combat which paints a different picture.
>The defense is not an action, but is the
>"skin" of the soul resisting an attack, just as the bark of the tree
>resists an axe.
Yes, I think there is a problem with the way that POW represents your armour/HP/attack/parry/dodge all rolled into one for spirit combat. One big spirit (POW 20) can *easily* handle half a dozen lesser spirits (POW 10). If POW is a log scale, then it must be a very steep one. It only takes a difference of 3 or 4 POW to make the outcome of a spirit combat a foregone conclusion, in my experience. I haven't worked out the odds, but I'd guess that the effectiveness of a spirit in one-on-one spirit combat doubles with every 2 points of POW or so. It's that pesky restistance table again... :-)
>Could some stalwart defender of Strike Ranks ... please write a
>defence of the existing rules? I would be amused to see it...
Well, I'm not dogmatically in favour of strike ranks, but I think that quicker'n'dirtier systems tend to be more arbitrary and less fair on the players (up to the point where you might as well flip a coin as in the old D&D initiative system). Remember, first strike is *very* important in RQ; it's not so much a question of *whether* limbs will go flying, more often it's a question of *whose* limbs will go flying *first*.
The CoC DEX initiative system is fine for CoC because players
don't often get into combat (unless something goes horribly wrong, and
then CoC isn't *meant* to be fair on the players anyway:-) and when they do
the details are less important. CoC characters don't usually do tricky things
in combat (there ain't many combat spells for instance), either they shoot
or (if they're smart) they run away.
There is a lot more potential for variety of action in RQ, especially as
far as spellcasting is concerned. Obviously some actions will be quicker than
others and I think that the SR system is a reasonably fair way of resolving
this.
Now, if you have a good GM and ameanable players I'm sure you could fudge
SRs to make things a whole lot quicker, but I feel that eventually some
disagreement is going to arise...
Having said all this, I've seen better systems for determining the order of actions in other games. For instance, you'd be hard pressed to find a system quicker'n'dirtier than "Judge Dredd" RPG (a real fun game!). The number of actions per round is based more on skill than anything else. It works for gunfights, although I dunno about melee. Phoenix Command has a similar (but, needless to say, more complex) system for combat actions.
I think I prefer systems where speed is determined more by skill than by
natural ability & weapon length. It may not be entirely realistic, but it
certainly seems more heroic.
But I guess for now I'll just put up with SRs.
___
BTW, is anyone else concerned about how crap 1-H swords are in RQ? You can
get a 1-H spear (which is near identical to a broadsword in game terms) for
a fraction of the cost. The only advantage I can see is the ability to
damage other weapons when you parry: but who ever parries with a 1-H sword?
It makes me wonder how swords ever became popular historically. Shouldn't
they have more AP at least?
___
CW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:31:54 EEST