RE: The Glorantha Digest V6 #70

From: alwallac <alwallac_at_linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 98 20:23:59 -0700


> Alex Ferguson
>

>To be a bit more explicit: my objection/suggestion is not "why not
>present the same horribly special-case-ridden rule in non-tabular form",
>but:

- -...................................................................

> "why not have a simpler rule, which doesn't _need_ to be presented
>as a table?"
- -...................................................................

>I disagree. It would be possible to handle this _much_ more uniformly;
>the question is, why is it necessary to have such a whacky variety of
>results? Each entry has up to two out of three possible types of result
>(gain/forfeit/transfer), with a less than systenmatic distribution of
>these. The mere fact of betting SP's on the result need not complicate
>or necessitate the table at all.

Let me preface this with the fact that I have not seen the HW system. What I can comment on is the line I sectioned off. Simpler is not always better, especially with roleplaying systems. The roleplaying system must have enough to it to promote the desired atmosphere. Otherwise, it's only purpose is to provide the feel of fairness and some control over your destiny.

  I strongly suspect that what you want is a game system that mostly stays out of your way while you weave a story of soliloquies and fantasies. This can be a good game, but you'd be better off in a LARP. A lot of people find this too much of an energy expense on a regular basis. This does not even get into the danger of the bombastic bully, just as annoying as the rules lawyer, sometimes even more so.

  The point I'm trying to make is that a system designed solely for elegant simplicity only really succeeds in being elegantly simple. It actually detracts from the game. To reduce to the absurd, I was in a game at DunDraCon 1 or 2, where the entire rules system seemed to be "State your intention, if your d20 roll beat the GM's, it worked." She had a very good story, was a good speaker, but the lack of game structure made the game miserable. There was never a feeling of controllable risk, it was like walking in a room with both invisible and illusory furniture. You kept banging up against things with no rhyme or reason. A system must foster some continuity.

  On a tangent, if your rules system does not foster a feeling of growth and progress for the character, save the ink and electrons. Without this your fan base will wither and die and justifiably so. Anyway, I'm just saying that you might well not be representative of the majority of the BUYING PUBLIC, with your needs. This is not an APA they are building, there will be a large expenditure of money and effort before this is all done, and assurances of monetary return had better be more important than fitting any one person exactly. As you said earlier, you already came up with an idea to tweak the system to your tastes, use that idea in your game. If the system can be easily tweaked to fiyt a wide variety of tastes it will succeed, if not it will not.

   As the old man climbs off his soapbox...............

                               Allen

Allen

If you manage to survive all the incredibly stupid feats of youth... - -..you become a wise elder or a crazy old fart... - -....depending of course on the gullibility of the audience...


Powered by hypermail