|
Re: [RPG]: RuneQuest (3rd Edition), reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette
1) As already discussed in this thread it didn't make Sorcery disastrous.
2) I saw in play, both recently, five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago and twenty years ago.
3) I understand the implications of the progression (it also applies to range).
As previously pointed out, according to the rules, the total number of NPCs who are likely to have sufficient FreeINT, magic points, the right spells and experience to which Duration is likely to be problem is less than 1 in 1,000. If your games differed that is not the fault of the game system, which is what I reviewed, not individual implementations of it. In other words, YMMV - especially if by intent or omission your group ended up with house rules.
|
Given that there was nothing stopping a PC from developing it at a pretty good rate as soon as he got the money to train Duration up, you have a fascinating definition of "not a problem"; given the most likely case on this was going to be a PC who had a high enough Intelligence to make it a problem (and it wasn't that hard to get one with 2d6+6), even one PC with it was virtually a game breaker. The fact you seem to think a seasonal play style was the standard even though I never saw a single RQ game that seemed to be run in that way doesn't change that.
Or put bluntly, a broken mechanic is not saved by campaign structure; its just concealed.
__________________
Afraid to fly, don't know why.
From mUrielw:
"Of course, if one had played more RPGs, one would have realized that shacking up with people whose goal is "fulfill the ancient prophecies so that my dead god might rule once more over the earth, and cull those not among our cult" is rarely a good idea."
|