From: Curtis Shenton (curtiss@netcom.com)
Date: Sat 03 Jul 1993 - 09:41:35 EEST
>
>
> Some clarification on the RLGRQ idea:
>
> * No axe to grind here. What I'm concerned about is the "make it
> optional" proliferation. I like the idea that optional rules be
> presented in shaded boxes. I do not like the idea of 35% of the
> RQ4 book being shaded boxes...
I really don't see that as being that big of a problem. But that might
just be me. :)
>
> * I see this as a way to get good rules development recognized. The
> Runic Sorcery idea has a lot of "that's neat" value, but I don't
> see it becoming the core sorcery rules. It would be a shame if
> only people with Internet access saw such items.
True enough. But if we could get a RQ Magazine going again...
>
> * In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there
> is a sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/
> simpler rules. Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick
> Brooke hasn't been posting very much lately? I know as fact that
> he's a "simpler is better" kind of guy, and I fear that he,
> and others like him, have abandoned this discussion in
> frustration.
Simpler is better! The way things are going I expect to use Elric!+ the
magic rules from RQIV if I ever run Glorantha. RQ is too complicated
already and RQIV looks like it's getting worse not better. Especially
combat, it's a big, complicated mess. And RQ combat, especialyl RQIII is
very, very slow. Now I play GURPS which doesn't have the fastest combat
system in the world but I've found RQIII to be much to slow for my
taste.
>
> How about a new approach:
>
> PROS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" (sarcastic title intentional)
> =================================
> * Keeps core RQ4 book lean and unintimidating
> * FORCES hard decisions about what gets put in RQ4, and what gets
> "relegated" to the supplement. This helps fight the "make it an
> optional rule in a shaded box" syndrome.
> * Allows good material to still see the light of day, even if it
> conflicts with the "standard" rules in the core RQ4 book.
> Remember, this is a book of variants, too.
>
> CONS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide"
> =================================
> * Even though we can say in big bold print "the rules presented here
> are all meant to be optional," there will still be compaints about
> having to buy multiple books to 'have a full set of rules.'
> * Confusion and complexity when running tournament events.
> * Pulls material away from possible publication in magazines. This
> is a serious concern, as having a RQ variant appear in, say, _White
> Wolf_ is free publicity.
>
I think the problem here is about how many optional rules we plan to
publish "officially" Now to me the only excuse for rules is to simulate
realism. If the game is supposed to be very unrealistic then it should
have very few, and very simple rules(TWERPS and TOON are two good
examples) if you want lots of realism then you need more complicated
rules(GURPS and the BTRC system for example) but I think RQ has always
had too many rules for the level of realism it tries to simulate. Look
at Stormbringer(and hopefully Elric!) the same basic mechanics yet the
game is a simpler than RQ as well as elegant and fast. Now maybe we want
more realism than Stormbringer but we don't need to publish 300+ pages
of optional rules.
>
> I've got us started. Help me out here - what else?
>
> -David Cheng
>
-- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:14 EEST