From: Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 1994 - 06:36:45 EET
Maybe I'm wierd, but I don't think of the character classes of
D&D as being worth shit, especially not as a venue from which to
evaluate RuneQuest. If D&D-style specialization is so god-damned
important, why have GURPS and Hero sold so friggin' well??????
In the playtest campaign I ran (that had an overwhelmin majority of
people who had NEVER played RQ before), the players liked the way that
the 2nd draft handled experience--make a "check" after a successful roll
and then the GM decided how many checks got rolled for. Furthermore, my
campaign used training and had a good deal of non-hack-the-beastie time.
Maybe I'm just wierd to run a non hack-and-slash RQ campaign...
In any case, whatever method is used, those proposed in RQ:AiG are just
The best way I've found so far has been to have the check be recorded
plain the worst of all possible worlds. There is no practical way to
differentiate among difficulty of skills with what RQ:AiG recommends.
after a successful roll and then the GM tells players how many checks to
roll for. I would usually use the rule of thumb given in the old
draft. It WORKED! I did NOT encounter "check frenzy" or "weapon caddies".
I didn't see ANYONE even beginning to slide into it!
(There are really times when I would just like to get my hands on the
"forces of grognardism" and SQUEEZE THE FRIGGIN LIFE OUT OF 'EM. Then
I take a few whacks at something with my swords and feel better...)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:32 EEST