[Runequest] RQ6 simulationist question

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Mon Jan 21 01:12:52 EST 2013

On 19/01/2013, at 7:49 PM, lev at rpgreview.net wrote:

>> Real hand to hand combat, whether bare handed, with blade or or weapons is
>> a very fluid and dynamic affair, with a lot of things going on
>> simultaneously, both mentally and physically. Not something that is easily
>> 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.

	I think RQ3 is an explicitly detailed and simulationist set of rules, just not as good at it, as fun or as interesting as RQ6. I don't think that in any way makes it more abstract. If anything, RQ3 is often less abstract (ie specific weapon skills rather than 'combat styles'), it just puts a lot of the detail in the wrong places. 

On 20/01/2013, at 2:38 AM, Tomas Björklund <tomas.g.bjorklund at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. 

	It is worth noting that, in RQ6, no one ever dies purely of hit point loss, because there are no general hit points. You either die from a Major Wound (so taking a lot of damage in a specific location, or from blood loss or some other factor like poison or magic. 

More information about the Runequest mailing list