I dig the game we are playing with open quest, does Rune Quest allow more specialized characters, characters without magic?

Quote from: Cranewings;413203I dig the game we are playing with open quest, does Rune Quest allow more specialized characters, characters without magic?

It's doable in all RQ variants, though the baseline assumption is relatively common magic. All you do is say "No battle magic" and leave out that step of character creation. Sorcerers and priests can still get their stuff if they want, but no one else will have magic.

Personally, I don't do it at all. D&D just seems not meant to be used for world simulation. There are games that can easily do this, but D&D is not one of them.

As Koltar suggested, I just ignore this stuff, when I run D&D.

Quote from: Cranewings;413120How do you do it?

In all honesty, I keep in mind that this is a game and within that context it all makes sense. I know that may seem like a cop-out, but that is how I deal with it.

Quote from: jeff37923;413219In all honesty, I keep in mind that this is a game and within that context it all makes sense. I know that may seem like a cop-out, but that is how I deal with it.

Quote from: KoltarAnyone ever wonder if maybe we over-analyze some of this shit?

are you having fun?

How much detail do you really need worked out?

I have two answers here, maybe three.
And they need to be prefaced with the fact that the Rule of Fun is paramount.  SO I am not arguing that.  We've all played in some games that were run by smart folk who were just lousy GMs, and so the ability to analyze a game does not make it better automatically.

But I will admit that I enjoy the analysis to some degree.  Vreeg's First Rule came about when it dawned on my (after trying to shoehorn/kitbash a system to match a setting and game) that different rulesets did different things better and worse, and were better suited to certain types of games (and gamers, for that matter).
The corrollaries are obvious, so I now look through this lens at all setting/game ruleset matchups.  Doesn't mean a game is not fun, however, if the mashup is different.  'A good GM makes a good game' is still Rule #1.

Secondly, it depends on the length and seriousness of the game.  The 'physics engine dissonance' that I worry about is pretty immaterial in a one-shot or very short group of games.  The less the setting is fleshed out and the less time the group has to get into a group-mindset/schemata, the less dissonance.

My main campaign is about to turn 27 years old next month, with 2 live groups and 2 IRC groups, as well as a bunch of older characters on what we call, "Remote Control".  I have 3 orignal players from the first groups...27 year players.  For those who want a longer campaign, or wonder about what makes campaigns sputter out, there are a lot of answers.  But I believe that one of the reasons that has allowed this to go on so long (aside from pure shit luck and other social attributes) is that the ruleset has been built specifically to support this setting and the play style we are looking for.

So is it over analysis?  Maybe.  But I enjoy the game, I enjoy the overview and the give and take, and I stand by the fact that the longer/deeper the game you want to play, the more the 'Physics Engine Dissonance" matters.