From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Mon 26 Jul 1993 - 13:24:07 EEST
Pete c/o Tom Yates <pete@slough.mit.edu> writes:
> I can't agree with this -- though perhaps our disagreement
> 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!
I have no problem with simple basic mechanics: when truth is told, RQ
only has three mechanics: the skill percentage, the resistance roll, and
the stat roll. But I think there are areas that DESERVE elaboration.
The reason that the combat systems classically get the attention and
detail they do is that combat is the only area that a character routinely
gets into that can be life-or-death for the character; in those sorts of
situation, the more control you have over the situation (via combat
options and the like) the better. Some other areas do not require as
much (most games are not likely to focus on knowledge skill use and
research so heavily that a detail level about what is already present is
necessary or even desireable). Of course, in different campaings, milage
may vary, but ANY game system makes some decisions as to how it expects
play to go.
>
> Regarding GM's and common sense: I've known few other RQ GMs,
> 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!
I have to stand by my original post with this: I've been running games
since 1975, and running RQ intermittantly since RQI. But I still find
that the more sample cases I have to work from, the easier it is to
extrapolate to the odd ones. When trying to do any sort of
extrapolation, ten data points are more useful than one.
I have to also make an argument: outside of the extra combat options and
the fatigue system (which I consider net gains well worth any extra
complexity they add) I'd argue the current draft ISN'T any more complex
than RQ2; it's more detailed in areas (the issue of how conflicting
skills work; we never resolved the stealth vs. perception question
adequately) but I don't see any great increase in complexity.
>
> I must point out that if a GM is going to have trouble applying
> 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...
No, I'm positing that there's a difference between not liking to make
decisions and not liking to be arbitrary. When I'm playing a game, I
like to have a pretty good idea what's likely to happen if I do
something; not have to second guess whether the GM and I have such a
different perception of events that my idea of results and his are going
out of kilter, or even worse, that his are not going to be consistent
from one time to the next. If the rules describe a process for hiding
versus someone looking for you, I can look at them, the situation, and my
skill, and make some sort of intelligent decision about it. If it
doesn't, anything can happen. I'd rather know about rules I disagree
with than operate in the dark, dependent on GM fiat.
> I'm not advocating a simpler rules system just to accomodate
> 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.
Guy, you've come to the wrong address: on the classic breakdown, I'm as
much of a simulationist/wargamer as I am a "roleplayer" in the pure sense
of the word; I find games (at least properly designed ones) interesting
for the "game" value as much as the RP support, and don't consider a
modicum of mechanics that enhances the former a deficit. I'd rather have
a longer combat that I feel involved with than a shorter one that's
overly abstract.
>
> I suppose that RQ4 could be developed and sold as a computer
> 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?
>
Because I hardly consider the current level of complexity torture, and
don't necessarily think simpler rules would make for a more fun game.
OD&D was a simple game. But after a while, I hardly found it a fun one.
------------------------------
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