From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Sat 03 Jul 1993 - 13:14:14 EEST
"Simple Nick" replies:
David's idea that we concentrate on the "hard decisions" now (separating
out essential stuff for "core RQ4" and "suggested/optional/wacky" ideas for
a later release) looks sensible to me. It can't help but focus our
discussion on the things that will get published, and away from the trivia
that people will ignore or change in any case.
I know we can all heap criticism on "rules supplements" like the proposed
Guide as a publishing policy ("the thin end of the wedge"; "blatantly
commercial"; "cynical and exploitative"), but anything that makes the game
more approachable for "entry level" gamers is fine by me. The fact that
you can go to any games shop and see dozens of similar products for other
games doesn't prove that it won't work for RQ. As Carl knows, we have to
make a commercially-viable RQ4 or Avalon Hill won't like it very much.
Adopting a tried, tested and successful marketing strategy can hardly hurt
us.
Besides which, we're already writing the bugger here on the Net. Nothing
personal, guys, but I'd quite like our ideas to reach a wider audience of
gamers than us modem-heads. Lots of words are bandied here that will never
fit into the RQ4 book, and plenty of them have merit.
> 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...
Right. And I don't see any other easy solution to this. Different things
bother different people: as gamemaster I have never felt the need for any
fatigue rules, but have always kept some "special hit" damage results for
non-Impaling weapons -- the old Slashes & Crushes. Other people obviously
feel differently, or RQ3 wouldn't have happened.
> In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there is a
> sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/simpler rules.
The problem is, we always end up looking like carping critics on this net.
It takes many hours of work to build a magnificent new Sorcery or Fatigue
system, and only a few lines to heap ridicule on it as unworkably flawed,
tasteless or unnecessary. So this forum doesn't represent (bulk for bulk)
the balance of opinions. Things like the new OJ "opinion poll questions"
are probably a good idea. (Hope everyone is answering him!).
But I fear that the people who *want* to design a new and better set of RQ
rules may be the last ones who should be allowed to -- they obviously think
the rules are what's important to the game! <g> (This is also the main
argument against Democracy, if you didn't recognise it!)
Oh, and I *am* a carping critic where changes to my beloved RuneQuest are
concerned: I don't want her to end up looking ridiculous. Two separate
books of RQ4 would help us make the break. One lean and mean set of basic
Gloranthan rules which we could *all* adore, and a second book packed with
small-print optional extras for grubby-minded nit-pickers who commit the
cardinal sin of referring to the rules while they're playing the game...
> 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.
Well, as David knows, there's *some* truth in that. A lot of the public
discussion on this Net is ephemeral; if you say a lot at once, most of it
gets ignored. Like the rest of us, I'm looking forward to more concrete
proposals from the Gang of "X". Like a new draft. That's the only way to
find out which ideas are catching on and which are dead and buried.
Besides, I've realised that whatever RQ4 says won't define or change the
way I play RuneQuest any more than RQ3 did. That is: I'll buy the rules,
take over the good ones, chuck out the duff ones, and carry on playing the
way I want to. I can laugh at people who blindly stick to the older/worse
rules, and attempt to edify those who play by the newer/worse rules. Just
like we all did when RQ2 changed to RQ3.
Cheers,
====
BTW, Curtis said (apropos of variant rules seeing publication):
> ... if we could get a RQ Magazine going again ...
Will you tell him or shall I??
Nick
====
0, answered,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:14 EEST