*** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction

[Bruce Mason]

On 02/07/07, Andrew Larsen <aelarsen at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>     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 I've
> always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good balance between
> playability and simulation.
>

Although I know what you're getting at, I  actually think the
playability/simulation axis is the wrong way to look at it. I think what's
crucial is what could be called "stimulation". I don't think any game system
could attempt to model or simulate the multiple types of combat in the real
world. You only have to read the anecdotes from those who are combat
recreators or have faced real, hand-to-hand combat to realise that what
"really" happens is so diverse as probably to be impossible to model.
However, you can when using a game "stimulate" the players in such a way
that combat generates adrenaline and stimulates the player in a way that
feels like combat. I think the biggest factor in RQ that achieves this is
the parry roll. The parry/dodge roll feels like you trying to defend
yourself. The other factors are the critical because it means in RQ almost
any attack feels as though it could kill you. (Clearly you get to levels
where that isn't the case), the fact that 1/20 rolls fail through sheer bad
luck and the relative fragility of characters once they actually take
damage. Add this together and what you have is a system where 90% of all
attacks are potentially dangerous and no matter how good you are you can't
defend successfully against everything.

The physical act of rolling a parry dice stimulates and the worry for your
character enhances that stimulation.

For me that's the essence of combat in RQ/BRP. Playability is really all
about how much book-keeping and how many modifiers affect every roll the
various mechanics require. Some groups actually like detailed calculation
while others tolerate it to an extent. RQ has a fairly large amount of
book-keeping. I don't think that RQ *simulates* combat any better than any
other system because I don't think you can simulate but I do think it
*feels* like combat because I find it more exciting than any other rpg I've
played.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/832da01d/attachment.html