From: via RadioMail (ddunham@radiomail.net)
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1993 - 04:11:04 EEST
>So? Any combat system can be simplified; any rules set can be
>simplified. The question is, is what you throw out worth the simplicity
>and time you gain.
I think you have this backwards. Any rules set can be _complicated_, but
they're hard to simplify. It's moderately easy to say, _in a separate
place_, "OK, you want to be more detailed about who hits first? Here are
some rules that take into account reach and weapon type." It's harder to
see strike rules and then see a section that says "Oh by the way, you can
not use these" (which ElfQuest does!). A beginning GM can more easily add
complexity if it's to his taste, but it's hard to remove something without
completely understanding the system.
And I don't think RQ-Lite needs to throw anything out. It merely prints
messy stuff in a separate product.
>> Out of curiousity, are they mostly people new to the hobby, or confirmed game
>
>Some of each. Most were ex-D&D folks, but a few were brought into RQ
>directly from outside the hobby.
Keep evangelizing!
Wayne (and others), given that you find details rewarding, you're not going
to be playing RQ-Lite anyway. Are you speaking against it because you'd
never use it, because you have better ways to simplify and speed up play,
because RQ should never be tampered with, because labelling scenarios "This
scenario refers to, but does not require, rules in the RQ Companion" is
incredibly stupid, because Avalon-Hill should put their resources
elsewhere? (In other words, we're probably not going to convince each
other, but I'd at least like to be able to agree to disagree.)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:20 EEST