Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Curtis Shenton (curtiss@netcom.com)
Date: Mon 19 Jul 1993 - 06:34:56 EEST

>
> David Cheng <drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> > This is fine and good by me, but isn't this taking reality too far?
> > Personally, I don't really care that in reality, the broadsword and 1H
> > bastard sword hit just as hard.
>
> Well, that's your choice, but my view on it is that outside of areas
> where the intervention of fantasy elements distorts the picture, I expect
> my game system to reality check reasonably, or I'll look for something
> else. Otherwise, trying to extrapolate past the spelled out issues of
> the game system becomes a constant chore as you have to either A: second
> guess how the designers would handle the problem, since the current cases
> have no reality comparison to extrapolate from, or B: Base it on reality
> and ignore the fact you're being inconsistent (or, I suppose, C: base it
> on what's game conveniant and grit your teeth). These do not seem a
> desireble set of options.

I'll second this. I like realism in my games. It makes the fantasy
elements seem so much more, well fantastic. I'm all for burning the
heretics. :)
>
> ------------------------------
> shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
> The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
> 

-- 
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,,
Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:27 EEST