[Runequest] RQ6 simulationist question

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Mon Jan 21 21:10:11 EST 2013

On 21/01/2013, at 6:02 PM, lev at rpgreview.net wrote:

>> 	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.
> Indeed, you are quite correct about RQ3 being more simulationist in terms
> of combat skills, especially keeping in mind that that the "specific
> weapon skills" were actually categories; "Adventurers trained in a
> category of weapon will gain equal percentiles in all weapons in that
> category" (p62 Deluxe).

	Yes, but having separate skills in 1 H spear (attack and parry), 1H sword (attack and parry), LH shield (attack and parry) is certainly a huge amount less abstraction than a single skill 'Hoplite combat style'. 

> As for the combat styles of RQ6... well, there was three pages of vague
> ideas; certainly a case of a great idea but of remarkably incomplete
> execution.

	It had never occurred to me that it needed much explanation - it seems fairly trivial to adapt to ones game in practice, and the notes on style in the GMing chapter made it pretty clear why there wasn't a standard list. 
	Which isn't to say that deciding what should go into a combat style is always trivial (those on the WorldOfGlorantha list will notice my recent obsessive musing on Dara Happan use of Greek vs Macedonian style phalanxes), but the reasons why should have little to do with the rules.

More information about the Runequest mailing list