[Runequest] Game balance in different editions

Gary Sturgess gazza666 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 01:37:35 EST 2012

On 4 September 2012 23:24, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's also worth pointing out in re:simulationism (real or purported)
> that real life isn't balanced whatsoever.  Any effort toward balance in a
> system as a goal unto itself is inherently non-simulationist.

Real life doesn't contain working sorcery and animism; does that mean
that any system that does is inherently non-simulationist?

I'm not being pedantic. I have never heard anyone use the phrase "real
life" to describe "simulationism" before, and I'm honestly curious if
that's a common definition. Normally simulationism is more a "is the
system internally consistent?" and not "does it reflect reality?", at
least as I've usually heard the term used.

> Maybe it makes me an ass of a dm, but I will often not 'plan' an adventure
> with a solution in mind; sometimes it's just fun to hand the characters a
> situation with known and unknown parameters like real life, and let them
> face it.  Sometimes there is no solution.  Whether that remains fun depends
> in how well you reward then by allowing character growth despite failure
> too, again like real life imo.

While I have no problem with unplanned adventure outcomes - indeed,
too much planning of outcomes leads to railroading anyway - I again
don't think real life is a particularly good goal. There are, for
example, very few systems that model skill progression the way it
works in real life (certainly no incarnation of RuneQuest has ever
done so).

Again - I'd certainly agree that character growth need not imply
success, and that properly handled a game that features even constant
failure can still be fun (after all, Paranoia is more or less built on
that concept).

More information about the Runequest mailing list