From: Pete c/o Tom Yates (pete@slough.mit.edu)
Date: Sun 25 Jul 1993 - 21:23:17 EEST
*Wayne Shaw writes:
WS>PM> Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably
I can't agree with this -- though perhaps our disagreement
Regarding GM's and common sense: I've known few other RQ GMs,
I must point out that if a GM is going to have trouble applying
WS>PM> result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that t
WS>PM> principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a
WS>PM> realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think.
WS>
WS> No, because I think you have that backwards. All other things
WS> being equal, a more realistic game, to some extent or another
WS> requires either more complex rules or more GM fiat.
hinges upon some of those "other things". Seems to me that a simple
set of widely-applicable rules can cover almost any situation as
well as a complex rules system, without necessarily sacrificing
realism! The resistance roll is a great example of this. It's a
simple mechanic that clearly embodies some sort of basic truth of
the physics of Glorantha (say! is that a secret of the God Learners,
I wonder?). You could base 90% of the mechanics of a game on a rule
as effective as that!
unfortunately. All the ones I've met, however, seemed like competant
folk who wouldn't have a problem dealing with this sort of issue
on the fly. Of course, some things can't be left to common sense:
most magic, for example, and in such cases as the distance a horse
can travel in a day, I suppose a *simple* list of animals and movement
speeds along with a *few* sample modifiers would be a good idea. But
that wouldn't require any more complication than in RQ2!
common sense to appropriate situation, they're hardly likely to work
well with a massive rules system -- that is, unless we're positing that
RQ GMs tend to be math-oriented wonks who lack the basic skills needed
to make a quick reasonable decision and make it stick. I'd argue with
that position...
WS> Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who
I'm not advocating a simpler rules system just to accomodate
I suppose that RQ4 could be developed and sold as a computer
-->Pete
WS> can't handle something more sophisticated mechanically than
WS> StarWars. Nothing I've seen in the playtest drafts to date
WS> compares in overall complexity to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just
WS> to name a few. If we're trying to compete by keeping the
WS> complexity down where the Palladium people can handle it, I think
WS> we've lost before we started.
the feebs and mental midgets of the non-RQ gaming world. The fact is
that a more complex rule system takes longer to play -- I think we
can all agree on that? And time spent on the mechanics is time *not*
spent on roleplaying -- in fact, it's arguable that working with
mechanics forces you to break out of the roleplaying viewpoint,
thereby actually decreasing the gaming experience.
program only, with GMs and players simply entering all their actions
into the program and recieving the mathematically exact result back.
But if it's possible to use a few basic rules to provide a system
that's realistic *enough* for enjoyable play, why should we torture
ourselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts
pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com
"If you don't want to kiss Duke Munchkin's ass, you can pretty much kiss
your own goodbye." -- Traditional NERO saying (spurious)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:38 EEST