[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 52, Issue 17

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Mon Jan 28 16:28:52 EST 2013

On 28/01/2013, at 9:46 AM, "Andrew" <bgecko at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Ah yes Bushido. I remember playing around with that game, as well as Daredevils, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne. Always came back to RQ however.

	And don't forget Aftermath, the other game system that used the loosely defined FGU meta-rules. A classic example of  detail obsessed simulationist design goals (pages of rules on designing your own sling shots! 30 hit locations! the huge catalogue of marginally different firearms!) that was dreadfully undermined by dubious rules in practice (actually, most handguns came down to d10 pr d10 +1 - and the various super high powered weapons could actually become less dangerous as power increased due to rules quirks).
	I have a weird love/hate relationship with Chivalry and Sorcery. I bought pretty much every supplement for the 1st and 2nd editions very cheap back in the day. I find a lot of great imagination and inspiration went into the rules and supplements, and they are full of interesting ideas (some excellently researched, some dreadfully), and I still keep them around for inspiration. 
	However, I have alway found the rules almost unplayably bad in practice. Magicians, for example, are either painfully useless or staggeringly overpowered, barely ever anywhere in between. Combats are slow and klunky and have too much detail, without ever feeling realistic. etc. 
	Much as I love the nostalgia, the rules systems we have now really are, for the most part, much much better (and I definitely put RQ6 as an example). That crazy rush of creativity at the start of the hobby, much of it totally mad but so much fun to read (any of Dave Hargraves Arduin Grimoire stuff, for example), I still find inspiring, but we really have learnt a LOT about how to make good rules in the intervening decades. 


More information about the Runequest mailing list