[Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics

[Ashley Munday]

Watcha,

You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a
non-combat emphasis then there are probably better
games to use than RQ?

Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells
and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit
magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when
it's used, let the player call it whatever they want
and leave it at that.

Cheers,

Ash

--- Bjorn Stolen <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> >   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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>