re-[Rq-rules] Introduction

[Lev Lafayette]

C&S was playable; it's just that is was badly
organised actually, it was probably the worst
organisation of a rulesbook I'd ever encounterd... and
in six (or less!) point font?!? Ow, my poor eyes..

OTOH in many ways it was a lot closer to AD&D; when it
comes to the "realism" stakes I'd rate RQ higher than
C&S..

All the best,


Lev

--- Andrew Larsen <aelarsen at mac.com> wrote:

> Yes, that was in fact a joke on my part, not a
> serious contribution to the
> discussion of the issue.  Since I feel an obligation
> to make a serious
> contribution after having distracted people with a
> joke, let me make this
> observation:
>     Game systems all have a tension between
> playability and simulation (by
> which I mean an effort for the system to make
> logical sense and simulate a
> real functional universe).  D&D, for example,
> emphasizes playability, with
> the result that it often has irrational rules about
> who can do what with
> which types of weapons and so on.  On the other end,
> Chivalry and Sorcery
> was marvelously simulatory, to the point that no one
> wanted to play it
> because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans
> out there).  What I¹ve
> always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good
> balance between
> playability and simulation.  The rules are logical
> and do a good job of
> simulating human combat, but without being so
> realistic as to seriously bog
> down play.  Many of the proposed discussions about
> how to improve the rules
> system often seem to emphasize simulation at the
> expense of playability.
> Yes, adding a nuance like Fatigue does make the
> system more realistic, but
> it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping that detracts
> of playability.  My rule
> about modifying the rules has always been that any
> modification needs to
> keep that balance intact, unless the problem it
> fixes is a major one.
> 
> Andrew E. Larsen
> "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized
> to nobody."
> Alan Moore--V for Vendetta
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/2/07 4:00 PM, "Wayne Shaw" <shaw at caprica.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > At 12:32 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote:
> >> On 6/30/07, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote:
> >> At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote:
> >>> >It's really quite simple.  Remember the Inverse
> Law of Ninjas.  The skill
> >>> of
> >>> >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the
> number of ninjas that attack a
> >>> >person.  Many ninjas guarantee that the person
> being attacked will live and
> >>> >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a
> profound threat to life and
> >>> limb.
> >> 
> >> That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and
> RQ throughout its
> >> life really hasn't been a cinematic system.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Just a hunch, someone failed his "humour" check.
> > 
> > My sense of humor was surgically removed at birth.
>  I don't miss it much.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > RQ-Rules mailing list
> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/