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

[Robert]

Somewhat off topic... but the first time I ran RQ (and for me that is
RQIII), I killed a player in one hit from a Broo.  Now, mind you, we were
used to high combat games (D&D, Shadowrun, Gurps) where the likely hood of a
small enemy killing you was slim.  I freaked, halved the damage and smiled
at my players ;)

What keeps us using RQ now is the ability to have some type of realism.
That doesn't mean I don't side-step or embellish rules when need be to keep
the players entertained and having and enjoyable time.

On 7/3/07, Bruce Mason <mason.bruce at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>
>


-- 
Robert Parrish
superninja42 at gmail.com
www.finding42.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/3768f314/attachment.html