From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Sat 28 Aug 1993 - 10:33:26 EEST
David Dunham (via RadioMail) <ddunham@radiomail.net> writes:
>
> I realize there are smarter, more patient people than me playing RuneQuest.
> I think there are ways to do RQ-Lite that allow you to play the same game
> you are now. The approach in that message was to see what could be removed
> from RQ and leave it more or less RQ, more or less playable with existing
> scenarios. All that was removed could be added in a rules supplement. This
> approach is less radical than changing the combat system to opposed rolls.
My objection to that sort of thing is that it becomes too easy to find
the situation where the rules suppliment "just happens" to never get
done. Simplification for its own sake can become a disease--I've seen it
happen before. But I have no objection to looking...it just seems to me
that much simplification from what is already present will destroy the
identifiable character of the game.
> It's good to know that RuneQuest will die with its soul intact. How long is
> Avalon-Hill going to keep putting money into something that gets them such
> a small return? You may not think simplifying the rules is the best way to
> revitalize RQ, but it's one way, and probably cheaper than monthly
> scenarios.
I also think it would fail. RQIII lost people because it was overpriced,
poorly supported, and contained godawful steps backwards like that
obscenely random character generation system and the clumsy fatigue
mechanic. I saw mighty few people bitch at it because of "complexity".
If it's going to die unless someone rips the guts out of it, then as far
as I'm concerned, let it die. If I wanted to play MagicWorld, I'd play
MagicWorld.
>
> The point isn't that the fumble chart is horrible and should be shot at
> dawn. The point is, it's just one more item to keep track of, one more
> thing to explain to beginning players. And it does slow play (not by a huge
> amount, and not all the time, but it's something I've noticed in our
> group). None of these many things is the culprit, but they add up.
>
David, I think we've had too different a set of experiences here to have
much meaningful discussion on this. I've heard various complaints by
people over the years, but general complexity objections have not been
one of them. There have been objections to the random character gen;
objections to the way movement and strike ranks work (most of which are
elimiated in the RQ4 draft) objections various other things. But outside
of the strike rank thing, and the general dislike of the RQ3 fatigue
system, I've never heard a single player of mine (and I've introduced a
good score or more of players to RQ over the years) object to any of the
other features you're talking about, even in aggragate. This can't help
but make me view this sort of simplicity quest as chasing a snark.
>
------------------------------
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 - 20:29:16 EEST