From: Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 1994 - 04:39:28 EET
On Wed, 23 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote:
> As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in
> suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a
> problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you
> have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, since most
> characters do about the same things they eventually become bery similar to
> each other." The new system allows a player to decide skills less often
> used in adventures but either crucial to his character conception or very
> important when they are asked for should be emphasized.
While the "ref-hands-out-checks" system might have advantages, I really
don't think this is a valid one. D&D may have character classes, but RQ
has *cults*, and tons of them, and that makes characters in any decent
campaign far more diverse than simple classes. Even if skills converge
somewhat due to similar adventures, the cult, racial, and national
distinctions in weapon preference and "rune-level requirements" (i.e.
what *you* need at 50% or 90%) will provide variation. If people are
getting identical characters its because they are all humans in the exact
same cults *and* the players don't have any imagination... even a party
of human, Orlanthi, Sartarites can have a spectrum of personalities,
weapons, and interests. Ray says non-RQers complain about this supposed
problem, but are we so sure these people would *ever* play RQ? If D&D is
any kind of standard for them, I doubt it...
> Avoidance of Weapon Caddy and CheckQuest effects while important was
> a secondary reason for changing the experience system. In this regard I
> think the playtesters are a sample drawn largerly from those who don't mind
> the convergence. Since we're trying to expand the market, I favor fixing
> this problem even though many of us who play RQ do not think it is broken.
Another solution is one that can solve many other problems discussed on
this list: EMPOWER THE REFEREE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GAME! A few simple
remarks about how CheckQuesting and Weapon Caddying is WRONG would
certainly work. The problem is when the rules don't really say when there
are exceptions to the "make-a-roll, get-a-check" rule and players protest
any "GM fiat" that comes up. You could put these kind of
"GM-has-the-final-word" caveats throughout the rules and only add about a
1/4 page to the final document *and* help with campaign and game balance
to boot.
Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:32 EEST