From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1993 - 11:58:16 EEST
David Dunham (via RadioMail) <ddunham@radiomail.net> writes:
>
> 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.
I said what I meant. A system that is designed for a more complicated
approach can usually be stripped down without throwing things out of
wack, as long as you understand how the parts fit together. Adding extra
often imbalance things in ways that are difficult to fix.
But my real point was that there is almost no point that someone cannot
argue that a rules set could be a little simpler and a little quicker.
My question always is "What did you decide to ignore to get it that way?"
>
> >
> >Some of each. Most were ex-D&D folks, but a few were brought into RQ
> >directly from outside the hobby.
>
> Keep evangelizing!
Well, truth to tell, previous to my involvement in the RQ4 playtest, I
had actually been away from the system for at least two years. Partly
from my having lost tolerance with random character generation, partly
just from having not ran a fantasy game in that time. But I still always
point it out to people who are looking for something in the Fantasy line
and want to stay away from D&D and it's kin.
>
> 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.)
>
My feeling is that I don't feel it's desireable for a number of reasons.
First, it diverts resources that can be used elsewhere: the same people
who are clamoring for RQ Lite might be useful in smoothing and
streamlinging the full fledged systems, but if they're off rebuilding the
system into a stripped down version, that won't happen. I also question
whether a stripped down engine plus a large supplimental package is the
best way to present a game. It certainly could produce a result where
the material presented in suppliments is not complete enough for those
using the full-bore version to use it without extra word.
A lot of it really is that when people start talking about something as
though its a given, I feel compelled to point out that it ain't
necessarily so. RQ Lite might or might not be an improvement from the
point of view of introducing more people to the game, but if it
eliminates features that make the game distinctive from others on the
market to do so, was it worth the price?
------------------------------
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 - 20:29:23 EEST