From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Mon 26 Jul 1993 - 12:27:14 EEST
There is a great deal of difference between systems that have complex
rules systems, systems that have complete rules systems, and systems that are
complicated to play.
I hope that made sense.
It is possible to make a rules system that is very complicated,
difficult to play, and doesn't add much realism. Thats is what I think
Rolemaster does, and thats why I don't play it.
It is possible to have systems that have simple basic mechanics, but
are complicated in practice by their completeness. A perfect example is
original Traveller, where knowing all the important rules was easy for a player,
but in practice it was very dificult to have complete knowledge of the system,
because of the number of areas covered by special rules. I like games like this!
If RQ4 is big, that is not a problem as far as I am concerned. If RQ4 is
difficult to play because of rules that are complicated or clumsy (and
Rolemaster is both, IMHO) then it will be bad. However, I have found relatively
little that makes me think that it will be like it. Some things I could do
without in my game, but if I can just ignore them that is fine. In fact it is
best if I can just ignore (say) the fatigue rules most of the time, and when
I find an adventure that needs them (like maybe the Garhound contest in parts)
then I'll look them up.
We should keep the core rules small, yes. Combat, as far as I am
concerned, has actually got easier to run in RQ4. The extra rules (like special
combat options) are not used except when I want them to be, and the rules for
number of combat actions are now much clearer, so tricky questions can be
resolved quicker. I know I can just make a GM call, but often I'd rather make
a considered GM judgement that answers the question once and for all than a
off the cuff judgement. And some rules I just don't use, but I am glad that
they are there. For example the optional movement rules using a hex-grid or
similar are of no use to me currently. When I get around to getting some
figure type thingies (anyone got a good cheap alternative?) and a map sheet
I'll use them, so I'm glad that they're there.
The RQ4 magic system is going to be complicated. But not because it
has particularly hideous mechanics, the mechanics are fairly simple. But the
magic system must simulate many different things, and gives some people many
different capabilities. It is complicated because magic is complicated, not
because the rules are complicated. Try and think about what level of
description and how many things we are describing with the magic system. Think
about how complicated the things magicians can do, the variety of magic
practitioners, etc. If you described it without game speak it would be
complicated still. As long as we don't add unnecesary complication to simulate
that.
I really like the RQ4 character creation rules. They take longer to
explain than RQ3 or RQ2, to create a simple character (a classic beginning PC).
However they are much more flexible, not much more complex in practice, and
require a lot less intervention from the GM. I like to run short term campaigns
with special PCs (for eexample one campaign had the players as the tribal
leaders of a Praxian tribe, who made decisions on behalf of the tribe, and
ended up both HeroQUesting, and leading the tribe into mass battles). The
system is much better for anything unusual, because I can say 'you have this
many points and these restrictions', and they require only accasional
guidelines. Previous systems required excessive tweaking to get reasonable
characters (eg appropriate cult skills, weapon skills not too absurd in
experienced warriors). RQ2 was even worse, if you didn't want to be a
barbarian or mercenary. For me, though more complex in concept, the system is
much simpler in practice because it is more complete and flexible so there is
less work for me to do at most character creation sessions.
BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills,
but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it
back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just
explained very badly.
To summarise, it is possible for a game to be complicated in its
entirity because it is complete and broad in scope, but simple in practice
because it has fairly simple basic mechanics. It is possible for a game to
have a lot of rules because it has rules for a lot of things, rather than
because to do any simple thing requires lots of rules. If we are to make
RQ4 a game that appeals to both the people that like lots of rules, and the
people that prefer to use their own judgement all the time, then that is the
sort of game we should be aiming for, simple basics, but complete.
Cheers
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:38 EEST