[Runequest] RQ6 simulationist question
tomas.g.bjorklund at gmail.com
Sun Jan 20 05:38:41 EST 2013
I stand by my view that whatever system evokes the right images and
feelings is the right one for you, but both systems do an equally good or
poor job as simulations. Every model contains abstractions and omissions,
and the difference here is in the mix of such in RQ3 and RQ6.
If someone feels that more or less randomness, or RQ6 works better than
RQ3, i.e. gives the "right feel" then that's fine, either way.
As a side note, what most RPQ systems get wrong, in my opinion is how
wounds and trauma affects a person. Here, both systems are quite far from
reality. Which is fine with me, and I am a huge fan of both systems anyway.
But if you want realism I would say this is the area you want to focus on.
Hit points, however you use them, like D&D in one big pool, or like RQ
segmentet by body location, is not a good model of how a body reacts to
wounds. Even though the RQ systems have some add-ons that deal with severed
and incapacitated body parts, which is an improvement.
Blood loss, and fatigue, are processes that can progress from fine to
worse, and conceivably be modelled with points, but incapacitation, shock
and death ... not so much. Most parts of a human body either work or they
do not, there is rarely any in-between state. Perhaps a more realistic
system would be no fun as a game, as I'm sure many have tried to model
reality better without much success (regarding playability) over the years.
I read somewhere that Dave Arnesson's first version of D&D actually had
more realistic rules for death and such, but Gygax and others felt it was
no fun. Which is why he imported parts of his game system for Naval battles
into D&D, and the world got Hit Points. The rest, as they say, is history.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> THIS round.
> 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
>> > 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
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest