Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6680968" data-attributes="member: 42582">Of course RQ is playable - it's one of the best RPGs ever published!But that doesn't change the fact that it's not very well suited for non-sim play.On divisiveness - I personally don't understand why classification is regarded as divisive. Look at this thread and you'll see different play preferences around (i) who has authority to introduce new content into the shared fiction, and (ii) what methods are used to introduce that content, and (iii) what the proper orientation of the various game participants towards the shared fiction should be. Those differences of preference aren't objectionable, and using terminology to try and describe and analyse them doesn't strike me as objectionable either.OK, but that seems mostly a fact about you. I know from experience that the lack of player decision points in respect of mechanics, in conjunction with the other features of the system that push against dungeon-delving style play (eg the brutality of combat) makes RQ a less-than-satisfactory vehicle for hard-pushing gamist play.This depends, in part, on what you think the game is. If you read Gygax's PHB and DMG, or Moldvay Basic, "layer cake" dungeons and wandering monsters are not optional, nor stylistic choices. They are core elements of the game.Obviously there have been many players of D&D who drop these elements and move the game in other directions - and 2nd ed AD&D does the same thing under the official label - but there are reasons why many players who incline away from the distinctive 2nd ed approach to play (eg OSRers, "indie"-types, etc) have less-than-fond memories of 2nd ed AD&D.I'm not sure if you're targetting this at me or not. The only game I think I've ever criticised on these boards (and I've done it again in this thread) is 2nd ed AD&D. (Perhaps also the occasional snipe at the "golden rule" from the old White Wolf games.)I'm not criticising RQ, or HW/Q, or BW, or Gygax's AD&D. I'm one of the main proponents of RQ on these boards, just about the only proponent of BW or HW/Q, and although personally I suck at Gygaxian AD&D I admire many of its features (esp its treatment of hit points and saving throws) and think it's a well-designed and highly viable game.I don't think that a good game has to be good for everything. (In fact, I tend to feel that a necessary condition of being a good game is being pretty focused on a particular approach to play.) Of my own campaigns, I don't expect my 4e campaign to deliver the same play experience as my BW campaign. They're different games that deliver different experiences.</blockquote>

Verification