From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Sun 04 Jul 1993 - 18:32:25 EEST
To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu
Subject: RQ Lite
davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes:
D> I don't think the idea of a Rune-Quest Lite is a good idea as a separ
>product. I ha't like the idea of RQ Lite much. Furthermore, I have empiriical
> evidence - the Basic set (whatever it was called) for
>RQ3, which just annoyed everybody. How does the proposed separation differ,
>how will it avoid the problems it caused? The balls in your court :-)
RQ lite would differ in that it would
a)Be a playable game by itself
b)Be a part of the complete rulebook, rather than a separate
"crippleware" product.
Carl
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:15 EEST