[Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest

[Tom Cantine]

On 7-Aug-06, at 5:04 AM, Simon Phipp wrote:

>
> My first thought was "Oh no, not a Between Adventures Section" - it 
> seems I am once again out of touch with common thought. The ones in RQ 
> Cities (?) had the possibilty of being killed in downtime, without a 
> chance to react. Personally, I have treated downtime as "Is there 
> anything in particular you want to do? No? Well, this happens and this 
> and this and this ..." just to tidy things up. Downtime is for 
> training, for catching up with day-to-day activities and can be 
> covered in a five minute summary/recap of what has happened.

That is one way of using downtime. However, that assumes that 
adventurers are adventurers through and through, and that nothing of 
any importance happens that isn't an adventure. While perfectly valid, 
that's not the only way to game. Some excellent adventures happen to 
people who get drawn into them against their will, and want nothing 
better than to settle down in the Shire and eat two breakfasts a day.

Admittedly, I generally would not use the parts of RQ Cities that can 
lead to character death, except perhaps as a trigger for an actual 
adventure. Or, if I had a large ongoing campaign with many characters, 
and the player was developing a new character, I would consider 
allowing the old character to die in a senseless accident or of a 
mundane illness, just to make the game world more real. I mean, imaging 
a new player joining the group, and in character hearing all the 
marvellous stories of old Jenarik and his exploits, and asking, "So, is 
Jenarik coming with us?" and hearing, "No. Last winter, he was coming 
back from visiting the temple, when he slipped on the ice and hit his 
head on a cobblestone. Died instantly. Kinda makes you think, doesn't 
it?" How often do PCs go that way? And it DOES make you think, doesn't 
it?