From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Thu 12 Aug 1993 - 14:11:31 EEST
davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes:
> Things that are additions to the game system rather than changes
> are obviously things that are fine to add. Into this category come Combat
> Special Options, New Skills that don't supersed old ones, the character
> creation system, and a few other things.
> These things go against the seemingly very popular RQ Lite
> movement, but hey, I like 'em all.
Me too. The character creation system in particular was what got me into
> It is probably fine to include changes to the core rules that change
this project. The excessive randomness of RQIII was probably the SINGLE
most irking feature about it to me and the people I play with.
> gameplay significantly, but that don't change characteristics. This makes
> RQ4 into a hefty change to the rules - we get new combat actions rules,
> changes to damage and healing, Easy/Medium/Hard skills.
Though I think we still need to officially address the issue of death by
locational damage. A lot of people have been treating triple damage to a
critical location (head, chest, abdomen) as an instant kill, but I think
it ought to be formalized.
> and then there are rules changes that will require changes to
> existing characters, but only small number of them - this includes some
> of the new skills, but mostly means Magic, shamanism and sorcery.
Which means, among other things that the finished work on the basic
> Then there are changes which change a few things on each character -
sorcery modification needs to be made. Even just going to the percentage
limited spells rather than free intelligence would help, as it makes it a
lot harder to generate the huge manipulations that used to be possible.
I realize I'm not in the majority in wanting something a bit more
reasonable in terms of ritual duration and (particularly) range
extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages
will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration
spells on them, even if we went back to the old system other than using
skill as the limiter; especially if the old Intensity etc foci are punted
and the new skill increasers are used.
> Spirit Combat) but they might be problematic, as the decision will have to
> be made as to wether new supplements will support these changes.
Though I'd tend to fight for it; it's fairly revolutionary as far as RQ
> Lastly, comes major changes which change the characteristics of
goes, but I think it was a good progression.
> everything, in several places. The only thing that I can think of is the
> new damage bonus/ armour system. It is unreasonable to suggest a new system
> if new supplements wil not support it, it is impossible to make it the
> standard system if it is only in a supplement, not a new edition of the
> rules, and it is very ugly to give two versions of statistics.
I'm not sure the new version works right anyway; it seems to miss the
> SO the question of the 'status' of the new version makes quite a
point of why some weapons had base adds in the first place, and really
looks to me like it might break as much as it fixes.
> bit of difference. Can we still make the RQ4 changes to the magic system if
> they will be unsupported? Can we produce a 'magic companion' and from then
> on expect people to have it? (plausible, FASA expect you to have their
> Grimoire supplement, for example).
> What changes can we have in the new format?
All important questions that I'd like to hear answered.
>
------------------------------
shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:44 EEST