[net.games.frp] Reply to my initial comments on RuneQuest 3....

steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (10/31/84)

    A few weeks ago, I sent out a review on the net of RuneQuest 3.
    Before I did so, I gave the review to Steve Perrin, one of the
    designers of the game, for him to look over.   The following is
    his rebuttal.  My response to his response, will follow shortly.

    Steven Maurer
    {sun,ihnp4,decwrl,ucscc}!qubix!steven



    CHAOSIUM INC.
    Box 6302
    Albany, CA 94706
    October 12, 1984


    Steve Maurer
    440 N. Winchester
    Santa Clara, CA 95050


    Dear Steve,

	Thanks for the copy of the writeup on RuneQuest.  For the
    most part you make a lot of unwarranted assumptions as to our
    motives for doing things, but since we didn't express our
    movtives in the rules, you have to make whatever assumptions you
    can, assuming that motives have any bearing on the quality of the
    game. Motives obviously mean a lot to you.

	 To clarify some things...

    High damage weapons were not given low starting chances because
    they are high damage, but because they are complex to use. Using
    a greatsword or halberd or naginata properly is an art that takes
    practice.

	 Lamentably, the Cormac example of the chase and the Climb
    roll is erroneous. Oh well. I didn't write it and it was put in
    because someone wanted an example of fatigue loss and
    misunderstood the rules. For your information, every game played
    with fatigue has worked just fine. It is an excellent game
    mechanic.

	 Think of fatigue as the panalty to your skills for wearing
    lots of Encumbering armor.

	 Have you ever fought in closed-in areas with no ventilation?
    I guarantee your fatigue goes down a lot faster.

	 Actually, I didn't like the subtraction of ENC on magic use
    either, but I didn't write the magic section. It's a minor rule,
    and can be ignored easily. However, the fatigue penalty to magic
    use stays.

	 Defense went away to huzzahs from Steve Henderson (Sir
    Steven MacEanruig, one-time king of the West) one of the original
    co-authors who fought its original inclusions tooth-and-nail as
    not realistic. Dodge was added to give the fantasy-reality of
    Errol Flynn-style swashbucklers. It works. I doubt you were truly
    dodgeing when you tried using the Greatswords and dodging. As I
    mentioned before, Greatsword is an art form.

	 Oh yes, you can't carry a horse and not get fatigued
    because, after all, you don't have the STR to pick up the SIZ of
    the horse.

	 Glad you liked the fire rules. They were written by Greg and
    Lynn, neither of whom has ever read the Champions rules. Another
    conclusion jumped at by the master. Sometimes great minds just
    work in the same gutter.

	 You have some good points on species maximum, though I am
    not totally offended by a STR 24 halfling. Assume a half-again
    limit or STR-CON-SIZ limit, whichever is lower. This may even get
    into the errata.

	 Mostly we are trying to mirror fantasy reality, but
    sometimes we stray too far into real reality and sometimes we get
    too fantastical. In the final analysis, the game works, to an
    almost universal chorus of huzzahs from old-time players. You are
    far and away the exception according to all the feedback we have
    received.

	 I don't think there is too much difference between writing
    game rules and software after all, if the testimony of all my
    computer hacker friends who talk about some professional software
    being a pile of crap is taken into account.

	 This is only a superficial response, but your survey was
    fairly superficial in itself, since you started from the
    supposition that the new game was bad, and looked only for what
    you could damn properly. I suggest you go over your review and
    look for silly exaggerations like the carrying the horse number
    and excise them before you publish it though the net. Otherwise,
    publish away. Aside from your jumping to conclusions as to our
    motives, we have no problems with your problems. They are, after
    all, your problems.

    Best,


    Steve Perrin