why talk about the rules?

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_...>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:58:05 -0800

"kyer, jeffrey" <jeff.kye-_at_...> wrote:
> I'm just finding the constant carping and loud whimpering about 'its
not
> RuneQuest' here getting a bit much. That sort of complaining is
> probably best in another forum.
>

Hrm, as one who possibly might fall into that definition (have I carped?) that's not my point at all. RQ is RQ, HW will be HW. I do think it's unjustly critical to point at someone who liked RQ and is having difficulty getting their mind around the HW paradigm in all ways, shapes, and forms as a whiner. Hardly. I think that the majority of the people on this list WANT to like HW, WANT HW to succeed, and WANT to migrate to HW as fast as humanly possible. That's why we're here, aren't we? It's why I'm here. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

But the step from RQ to HW is not an easy one, at least for me. So please, be patient with those of us who haven't 'seen the light' apparently. I like the AP mechanic, but I *am* having trouble internalizing it as the best possible method for resolving all circumstances.

In fact, personal anecdote, I've complained long and hard within my gaming circle about simulation systems (such as RQ) NOT taking into account any of the morale factor, except as a fight-or-flight binary switch. Any athelete can tell you that the mental attitude of a team has a great deal to do with its success, ALMOST REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL. If you play on a sports team, you probably can remember when your team was "on" - everything was in a groove and went right.

As a concrete example: It is, in fact, the reason that in American football you don't see more fake punts, reverses, or razzle-dazzle plays that the fans want to see EXCEPT by desperate teams. Every coach and player knows that such a play, if executed well and successfully, is able to "turn the tide" of a game. But if it's botched (usually the most likely resolution) it will UNDOUBTEDLY turn the tide against you. In effect, it's flipping a coin on the moral impetus of the competing teams.

For this reason, I really, really think the AP system represents the abstract contest between parties really well. But would it work to simulate the actual throwing of a pass (with handicaps for wind, an edge for height of the receiver, etc) - of that I am NOT so sure. And I'm having personal trouble simply saying that I'll just abstract everything. I LIKE COMBAT. So what do I do?

It's for this same reasoning that using the AP system for combat is in total disjunction with having a range table for missile weapons, for example. As was mentioned previously I don't think I'd even count arrows, using the HW system. Why? If someone buys 120 arrows when they have a chance, does that make ANY difference to whether or how they succeed in an archery contest? No. So why count them, if they provide no advantage? It's what my players will say. Call it carping, call it whining, but that's the truth and as a Narrator - and as someone who would very much like to run a demo game - I NEED TO HAVE AN ANSWER, and at this point (for a very narrow aspect of the otherwise great rules set) I don't have it.

-Steve