[Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics

[Bjorn Stolen]

>   The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your 
>campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a 
>lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >writing up speciality 
>spells for all the different crafts.

This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't 
say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write 
up a warrior cult."
The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that 
doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more 
focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life.
In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping 
attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more 
importaint" than other fields.

I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other factors, like setting, the 
anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by the GM to have more 
influence of the focus of the game than the (focus on combat in the) rules, 
but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity of having special-rule 
upon special-rule when it comes to solving combat-situations.