From: via RadioMail (ddunham@radiomail.net)
Date: Wed 01 Sep 1993 - 23:14:50 EEST
>From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw)
>> 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.
I know you wrote what you meant, but I still think you're wrong. And then
I'll say it again: I don't think any part of RQ has to be thrown away. I
you agree with me -- that you have to know the system in order to simplify
it. By definition, new GMs don't know the system, so they have to learn the
entire complex system before they can simplify it. This is a mistake in
rules presentation (made by e.g. ElfQuest). I definitely agree that adding
things will imbalance a game, but we're not asking people to do that, we're
asking them to buy a rules supplement where things have been thought
through (much of it being stuff that's already there today).
think that RuneQuest should be presented in a way that it is clearly an
elegant, easy-to-use system (saying "New Streamlined Rules" on the box
isn't enough, it has to _look_ streamlined by virtue of being short), and
the best way to do that is to print the optional rules in a separate
publication.
>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?"
Are you familiar with Prince Valiant?
BTW, I don't see RQ-Lite as a given, that's why I'm arguing that it's a
>From: Dustin Tranberg <dustin@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
good idea and trying to show ways it could be done.
>Especially bleeding. Bleeding is wonderful! There's nothing like
>having to rush under the sword of the enemy to try to keep a friend
>from having his/her life leak all over the floor, of knowing that
>someone who was knocked out in mid-combat might be dead by the time
>it's over, and isn't just lying in stasis on the floor.
My RQ3 house rule was something like having to make a CON vs (negative HP +
number of rounds below zero) roll on the resistance table. This obviously
involved some bookkeeping, but less than on a per-wound basis. And even it
shouldn't be in the basic game.
>From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" <ROBERTSON@delphi.intel.com>
> Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include
>notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ
>Classic in RQ Lite.
>
> In the RQ Lite rules, include a chapter on how to read RQ Classic
>character descriptions and turn them into RQ Lite.
Yes, this is what I'd had in mind. I'd go a little further, and print the
single armor value (and major wound level, if that's part of RQ-Lite) in
supplements, and maybe put the single weapon skill in boldface.
> As a side note, I use a "RQ Lite" for my own campaigns for NPC
>Spear-carriers. Who cares if they aren't fully blown characters, they
>are only meant to slow down the PC's for a few rounds while the major
>NPC's get away or arm up.
I dislike having different rules for PCs and NPCs, and I suspect one reason
may be the fact that Rurik Runespear was killed by trollkin. In RQ, any foe
(especially in multiple) is not to be taken lightly, and the rules should
reflect this.
>From: Simoe, the cover artwork
>and any reviews they may have read. In most cases people are not in a
>possition to flip extensively through the rules before deciding to buy,
>so whilst improving the rules is obviously very important and will bring
>in new players issues such as the games product and press image are more
>important.
You raise some good points. While in most shops you can't see the rules
before you buy, you _can_ see them when you get home. I have quite a few
games sitting on my shelf that I'll never play because the rules didn't
appeal to me. Simple rules won't matter to the would-be GM, but it's only
when he decides it's something he can run that his players might buy
copies.
And I think the best way to get a press image of easy-to-play is to be in
Presumably, marketing issues would be addressed in any new edition (be it a
fact, easy-to-play.
full new RQ4 version, or RQ-Lite). And the most important one might be,
lose the box. That has to add at least $1 to the cost, and Avalon-Hill
doesn't know what size to make boxes anyway.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:31 EEST