From: Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@num-alg-grp.co.uk)
Date: Tue 31 Aug 1993 - 19:02:55 EEST
> I don't know if it's a big movement, but there are a few voluble
> people out there who don't seem to like RQ Lite. As one of the
OK, here are some of my thoughts on the issue, since I have not said anything
before now on it.
Basically, I do *NOT* like RQ Lite, particularly if it is going to scupper all
the improvements hoped for in RQ4.
> First, RQLite would have rules modules, each of which could add
> complexity if desired. The basic game would be stripped down and
> intended for use in a universal setting, a lot like BRP. The rules
> modules would all be directly compatible with the basic game.
This is just one of my concerns: it HAS been done before. It was not an
overwhelming success story then. Why is RQlite going to be better than BRP?
I disagree that we should be looking at how much we can chop out. We do need
to rationalise some of the previous mistakes, but that does not mean throwing
things out.
COMPLEXITY OF COMBAT:
Why does combat take so long? Perhaps because the GM encourages players to use
---------------------
Let us focus on the areas of combat which are considered to add to the
complexity:
(1) fatigue
- the RQ4 LTF rules (or something!) are needed to handle "encumbrance".
- the RQ4 STF rules (or something!) are needed to handle longer
(significant) conflicts.
- surely everyone ignores fatigue for short inconsequential fights. WTP?
- (I do agree that RQ3 fatigue is too much effort for too little reward,
but the RQ4 rules seem to be ok).
(2) hit locations
- to me, this is one of the essential characteristics of RQ. Don't drop
them! For running NPCs (what I mostly do, actually) these do NOT add
noticeably more complexity during the actual melee; when I prepare a
sheet describing a group of "monsters" I just put the hit locs into a
table. Doesn't everyone do that?
(3) strike ranks
- are no more difficult than DEX order, or indeed any set order. WTP?
too many tactics, to go off in all directions at once, etc. These all make
combat longer...
Since the last D&D-style combat I was in took all evening with only 6 attacking
monsters, I cannot agree that it is worth losing all the flavour of RQ combat
just to make it shorter. Sometimes it does, but at other times the mechanics
of the rules are not the problem.
CHARACTER GENERATION:
---------------------
> Character generation rules would be based around sample characters of
> several basic types. I'd go for tribal warrior, hunter, healer,
[...]
> artisan, trader, laborer, and initiate as a start. The RQ4 generation
> rules (fixed to reduce overly common combat skills) would be a rules
> module that you could add on to these rules, as would a simple
> CoC-style set of rules.
No, just fix the RQ4 rules. Splitting it into an "easy" set with an optional
module just *complicates* things for those of us not satisfied with a "ok, you
are the stereotypical tribal warrior of age 22, end of story" approach.
In the best of all possible worlds, it will be possible to use the generation
rules in such a streamlined mode for those who want it that way. (Can the GM
not just say, "ok, pick just one Template, no changing professions, no
extra-curricular activities" if they want players to get chars fast with little
effort?).
> Monsters and NPCs would be made available in the form in which you
> actually use them. Rather than being presented with all
> characteristics, their combat stats and skills would be presented so
> you could take them directly from the monster listing and use them in
> the game without rolling them up and calculating everything down to
> the last percentile. There would be an additional module giving stat
But... the "average" monster already has their combat stats and skills worked
out! If the GM wants a bunch of average trolls they can have them. WTP?
Again, splitting up the information makes things more complex for those who
want to do more with them.
And, what about DEX*5 etc. type rolls for monsters? The GM needs to know what
the stats are if they are going to have to do this kind of thing!
> In addition to the rules modules mentioned above, there would be a
> rules module allowing you to run diceless RQ. This is a huge boon to
Ah, you mean the booklet printed with 20 blank pages.
One does not need rules to run free-form.
> The whole thing would be called RQ4, with the RuneQuest Lite rules
> being in one inexpensive book for those who wanted just the basics and
> the full rules modules in an Advanced RuneQuest book. Alternately you
Ugh.
> could have one book with a Lite section and an Advanced section. Magic
> systems aside from spirit magic would be in the RQ4 Magic of Glorantha
Another essential characteristic of RQ is the cult system. (And I say this
even though I run non-Gloranthan RQ with cults relatively downplayed).
I think you probably need Divine Magic to handle cults properly. (Or a
fixed-up Sorcery to handle sorcerous cults).
> The difference is that Standard Edition RQ had crippled versions of
> every system from the full game; RQLite on the other hand would
> include just enough systems to play a quick version of the game, but
> would cover them in entirety. In RQLite, Spirit magic, for example,
> would be covered entirely, but Divine and Sorcerous magic and shamans
> would be glossed over and those who are interested would be pointed to
> the RQ4 Magic of Glorantha book. The modular rules design would ensure
I do not agree that your description is a way of achieving such a result. If
What I want to see is a version of RQ which is not more "complicated" than RQ3
you cut down combat the way you describe you are going to end up with a
"crippled" system for that at least. If you cut out Divine Magic you end up
with a "crippled" cult system.
but is more effective - i.e. the complications actually give us something
worthwhile (unlike, to pick everyone's favourite, RQ3 fatigue). But I do not
see the need to chop out bits of the system which have withstood the test of
time.
--
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
(malcolm@nag.co.uk)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:24 EEST