[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm not so convinced. While I'm not intrinsically hostile to that sort of structure in some games, I think it works better when there's a stylistic bias in the rules toward the dramatic and abstract than in something like RQ, which is biased toward the concrete.

The irony here is that it's only online that I've run into people who are longtime RQ/BRP players that have such a hyper-literal take on things. My experience "in the real world", as it were, is that most RQ/BRP players tend to play loose and free with things, just like I'm describing. The two biggest pluses for BRP that I constantly hear (in person and on line) is that it "fades into the background" and it's easy to houserule on the fly without breaking anything. Both of those fit my playstyle much more than what you describe. I'm not doing anything that's not quite common and haven't upset anyone or caught them off guard with my style.

I would argue that it's style too. What you describe is similar to using a battlemat with measured distances. Whereas what I do is draw up a map and describe things as rough distances. In fact, I'd argue that how I handle both is much more "realistic" as it provides the fog of war that's going to be missing when players know exactly when things are going up or down, exactly if someone is in range or not, etc.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Agreed. RMS has played some HeroQuest, so I think that sort of approach is second nature to him now.

HQ "ruined" him for normal gaming.

Apparently, I was ruined for "normal" from the beginning. I remember reading in D&D, T&T, and RQ II how the rules were open for interpretation and that the GM could bend them to make sense, so I've just always done that. I'm completely mystified by people believe there's something sacred about the rules as written. Plus, I'm definitetly an immersionist, so I'm after getting the feel of the world first, so always am willing to bend, or break, the rules to fit my vision of the world....and never willing to go the other way. To me world consistency >> rules.

Personally, I liked the way Ars Magica handled durations, putting then in terms that were easily measured by people without timepieces (whats a minute without a clock?) like Sun (works until sunrise or sunset). Makes magic seem less scientific and more arcane.

Exactly my point. Magic shouldn't work to a time piece. It should work for some rough amount of time, but never be 100% dependable IMO. Plus RQ actually supports me a bit here: magic is specified for X rounds, but rounds aren't a set amount of time (they're roughly 12 seconds, but not exact).

Still, my main reason for doing what I do is simply because I'm not willing to do the accounting. It's just like the fatigue system. It's not terrible, but not worth my time/effort.