Re: Comments on RQ:AiG Mechanics from George Harris

From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Thu 27 Jan 1994 - 11:38:58 EET


George Harris writes:

> Skill vs. Skill Resolution: The Pendragon method
> (highest roll in the best category of success) is so much simpler
> and easier to figure than anything else that discarding it
> because it violates some artificial metarule is sheer folly.

It *is* confusing. I hate systems like AD&D where one has to switch
between "high is good" and "low is good" from one action to the next.
One of the things about RuneQuest as a game system is its elegance of
using one approach to all resolution by die rolls.

> Besides, before now low wasn't always better anyway, since to
> make a skill gain roll you tried to roll *over* your skill.

That's the one thing where RQ3 did not keep up this consistency.
Fortunately outside of gaming in the book-keeping only. If we change
anything, let's change this. Substraction from 100 is fairly easy
arithmetics and ought to be allowed in a game where some people
calculate statistical preferences of damage types vs. certain types
of armour.

> Use
> the better method. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
> small minds.

<g>

Apparent simplicity can disrupt the elegance. Don't make this game
Gygaxish.

-- 
Joerg Baumgartner      rq4@sartar.toppoint.de

0,,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:32:31 EEST