Mikael shows how far apart we really are...

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_iname.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:57:11 -0500


>Dan McCluskey said
>
>>RuneQuest in all it's myriad versions is a Combat Simulation game.
Mikael replies:
>Thank God that HW *isn't*.
>

Oh dear, here we go again. Well, I stand up as one of the "untouchables" who disputes this opinion.

>Brian in response to Dan McCluskey:
>>Your points make a lot of sense, but they're also based on an
>>as-yet-unproven assumption that people really do want to play
>>Storytelling-focussed games more than they do Combat-focussed games.
Mikael:
>You don't have to choose between Storytelling and Combat. You can have
>both. With HW, combat can be storytold, and the told stories can be
>conflict-focussed.

But you're missing his point. In HW even the combat will be, whether it's the focus or not, storytold. Some people seem to think that this might *not* be a good thing.
Some people prefer roleplaying in which their characters actions are responses to the real world, versus a storytelling game the randomness of the real world is subordinate to dramatic action.

>>Inextricably tied to this is the rules-lite vs. rules-heavy issue. Will
>>HW and storytelling, rules-lite RPG gaming win out over the despicable
>>opposition?
>
>HW isn't rules-lite. There's quite a lot of rules in the drafts. The
>difference is that, for once, combat-related rules don't hog 50+% of the
>book, and that the mechanics primarily aim to create a sense of drama and
>adventure instead of 'realistically' simulating actions and situations in
>the game world. As always, though, it's up to GMs and players to actually
>make the game fun and dramatic.
>

But that's the point. (He should perhaps have said "numbers-lite vs. numbers-heavy".) I personally find plenty of suspense, excitement and drama in wondering "I have an 85% chance to hit, he has a pretty good parry, and I have to do 17 hp to him NOW, because in 4 SR his buddy's Killer-Spell-o-Death is going to hit me, and my POW of 6 won't hold up against his which must be at least 16." It's numbers-heavy, and detail heavy, but I like it. And given the history of the "rulesy" pendulum in the RPG world, apparently others do too.

>>a certain rules-heavy combat-friendly system...
>
>The problem, as i see it, with RQ's 'combat-friendly' mechanics is that
>they're not designed to evoke drama, excitement and heroic action. Most of
>the fun and excitement in RQ combat situations is dispersed by having to
>focus on keeping track of numbers. The intention of RQ's mechanics is to
>simulate combat situations, and so the *simulation* itself hogs most of the
>player's attention which should be reserved for the *situation*. I'd say RQ
>is combat-hostile; combat situations shouldn't be an exercise in tactics
>and strategy, but an experience of dramatic action. But then again i'm not
>a wargamer.

WHOA! Let me requote that: "combat situations shouldn't be an exercise in tactics and strategy" - HUH? Yes, I believe that is a /very/ good illustration of where we part company. (Shaking head....wow.)

End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #530


Powered by hypermail