From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Wed 28 Jul 1993 - 01:34:01 EEST
>
> RQ3 training was really the pits; complicated, youngish characters were too
> weak, most characters came out with boring skill lists and insufficiently
> specialised.
Absolutely agreed: I don't know anyone who has used the base RQIII
character generation rules unmodified.
>
> > BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills,
> > but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it
> > back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just
> > explained very badly.
>
> Well, I am glad to see it back! And I am glad that it has been simplified; the
> RQ2 way *was* unnecessarily messy (as well as only affecting training).
>
> --
> ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
> (malcolm@nag.co.uk)
>
My GM* (who goes back to RQ I, though I only started with III) doesn't
want to implement the easy/medium/hard skills because he thinks it will
imbalance character progression in the cults we have. A character with
2-H spear as a cultural weapon will get to 90% skill level very rapidly,
and thus gets a big advantage in combat and rune level advancement over
someone who doesn't get easy skills in his culture/cult. Has anyone
found this to be a problem with the RQ IV rules in a long-term campaign
setting? Are there any plans to implement changes to requirements for
rune level in RQIV ie 110% easy = 90% medium = 70% hard for skill levels.
I like the new skill difficulties personally, but I think my GM has
valid worries.
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
*PS This isn't really relevant for this list, but my GM (Gary James) claims
that many of the characters encountered in Jaxarte's Journals were originally
PCs in his old Prax campaign in Melbourne. Can MOB confirm or deny?
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:41 EEST