[Runequest] Game balance in different editions
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
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
More information about the Runequest