From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Tue 22 Jun 1993 - 00:12:20 EEST
Three possibly controversial things that are bugging me:
i) What are the terms of reference for RQ4? What do Ken and Avalon Hill
ii) "Mathematical accuracy" -- I'm against it. I like the current
iii) Fatigue -- who cares? Honestly, guys, some of the systems I've seen
want to see at the end of the day? While the Gang of "X" must know this,
we are probably wasting a lot of time arguing about non-issues here --
things that will not be countenanced by the project proposal, however
"neat" or "clean" they might appear. So it would save everybody's time and
effort if we had this out in the open. Any illuminations, Oliver?
three-point bands in the Hit Points Per Location chart, 'cos they make
character creation and off-the-cuff combats a lot quicker and easier. I
dislike the overly-literal RQ3 "Skill Results Table" chances for Special
Success 'cos they don't make intuitive sense (I'd play more simply: 01-05%
= impale on a 01; 26-30% = impale on an 01-06; etc.). I don't see why the
huge and fiddly tables have to be introduced: they don't make anything
measurably better or easier, IMHO.
would fatigue players and gamemasters more than combatants! This is a
comparatively unimportant part of the rules, surely not worth the amount of
attention being lavished on it. As my usual cop-out, I'd say "leave it to
GM fiat": give us an idea of what being fatigued can do to a character's
skills etc., then trust us to implement those results reasonably. Say, you
can fight for CON rounds (perhaps subtracting one from CON for every STR
points of ENC carried) before starting to tire. Or something like that.
*Not* a regular book-keeping check at the end of every round, or the new
rules will be ignored like the old ones were.
Yours minimally,
Nick
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:00 EEST