From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Sat 24 Jul 1993 - 14:13:11 EEST
Pete c/o Tom Yates <pete@slough.mit.edu> writes:
> Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably
> result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that this
> principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a more
> realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think.
No, because I think you have that backwards. All other things being
equal, a more realistic game, to some extent or another requires either
more complex rules or more GM fiat. There isn't a lot of third cases.
>
> Is it really necessary to produce a rules system that can
> realistically simulate such a vast range of possible actions?
> Perhaps it would be a better idea to simply incorporate into the
> rules a simple statement to the effect that unless otherwise dictated
> by magic or supernatural effects, common sense and logic are the
> guiding principles for game-world actions and events.
The problem is that the primary function of rules is to avoid dumping
just this sort of load on a GM. For common cases, I shouldn't have to
decide how to deal with the proper way of handling a situation in the
rules: it either should be spelled out or self-evident. "Common sense"
because a term of remarkably slippery meaning as soon as it comes time to
fit events into game mechanics; even more so when the situation is
somewhat outside the experience of the GM. For example, I've seen a
number of GMs make "common sense" assumptions about the limits of how far
a horse can march in a day relative to a human that don't match reality,
just because the impressions many people are given in this area are
faulty. Similarly, the ideas that people get about weapons use from
watching movies are only useful if the game is supposed to simulate
cinematic reality. One of the purposes of rules are to do the necessary
pre-research so that the GM DOESN'T need to know much about these
subjects just to run the game.
>
> I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going
> to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know
> refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly-
> massive system. How are they going to react to the grossities that seem
> to be in the works? If RuneQuest IV fails to pull in new players then
> the system is not going to go anywhere, and may well become a Net-only
> affair. If that.
Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who can't
handle something more sophisticated mechanically than StarWars. Nothing
I've seen in the playtest drafts to date compares in overall complexity
to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just to name a few. If we're trying to
compete by keeping the complexity down where the Palladium people can
handle it, I think we've lost before we started.
------------------------------
shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:38 EEST