From: Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@num-alg-grp.co.uk)
Date: Thu 20 Jan 1994 - 16:29:37 EET
> > my GM (a very long
> >time player with a copy of RQ1) rejected it, because he'd memorized
> >the old ones. I suspect a lot of long time players may have the same
> >reaction
Obviously long-time players will fall into 3 broad camps:
(1) will not buy RQ4
(2) will buy RQ4 and use the changes in it they like
(3) will buy RQ4 and switch to it more-or-less completely
I don't buy this "memorised the old ones" argument.
- There are more hit charts than just the humanoid ones.
- Anyone that fossilised will fall into category (1) anyway - they will not
- rejecting an improvement just because some old fogies won't use them is
accept ANY revision of the system (on exactly the same grounds).
not valid; if you are revising the system, it will change, period. Having
made the decision to revise the system implies that the "old fogey" argument
has already been rejected.
> I don't know that the RQ4
> chart is so much better than the RQ1/2 chart that it's worth switching.
But from the point of view of the RQ3 player or the newbie there is no
"switching" from RQ1/2 to be done; he just wants the "right" table.
Given that there is to be only one table, IMO it should be the new one, i.e. my
experience (in playing with it) is that it is a significant improvement (over
using the RQ1/2 one).
--
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
(malcolm@nag.co.uk)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:26 EEST