[Runequest] RQ6 simulationist question
styopa1 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 20 03:55:15 EST 2013
Would you say RQ3 is more abstract and RQ6 more simulationist, really? I
guess I'd agree that RQ6 is simulationist AS IS RQ3, but in different ways.
RQ3 strikes me as anything but abstract/
I'm not sure, we start to reach the gray areas of semantics, I think.
RQ6 far better (to me) addresses the 'other stuff' that happens during
melee, the tactical ebb-and-flow between two fighters, the exploitation of
the opponent's mistakes, etc. There's a lot more (to me) to keep in mind
as far as buffs/debuffs that happened LAST round that have an effect in
RQ3 OTOH is simpler, more mechanistic, each round of melee combat is far
more discrete with little happening in this round that affects future
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:49 AM, <lev at rpgreview.net> wrote:
> > Real hand to hand combat, whether bare handed, with blade or or weapons
> > a very fluid and dynamic affair, with a lot of things going on
> > simultaneously, both mentally and physically. Not something that is
> > captured by game rules, and I think that a truer simulation would lead to
> > a
> > quite complex pen and paper game system. Especially if you want to model
> > the concurrency in a real fight.
> I think it's pretty clear that RQ6 is a more simulationist set of combat
> rules and indeed, it is explicitly orientated to do that. RQ3 is
> deliberately and openly more abstract.
> As for complexity, I think that is best "simulated" by higher levels of
> randomness. A game system that seeks to encapsulate the multitude of
> variables is either going to have to be much more complex or more random
> (to abstract the complexity). Interestingly, Rolemaster did a reasonable
> job at this because of the crazy unknown killer criticals.
> All the best, Lev
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest