From: Graeme A Lindsell (graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au)
Date: Fri 21 Jan 1994 - 17:43:52 EET
Malcolm Cohen writes
> 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.
But the humanoid chart is used far more often than the any of the
others, at least in our campaigns. It is the one most likely to be
memorized
>
> - Anyone that fossilised will fall into category (1) anyway - they will not
> accept ANY revision of the system (on exactly the same grounds).
>
Actually he fits into your category 2: we play mainly rq3 with the rq4
draft2.0 combat rules (I couldn't persuade him to change our campaign
into just rq4). I didn't agree with his ruling on this - I liked the
new table when it was proposed on this list - but he's far from fossilized.
I was replying to a comment that many friends of a previous poster disliked
the new table with a possible why they didn't.
> - rejecting an improvement just because some old fogies won't use them is
> 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 agree. I started rq with rq3, though I have a copy of the rq2 rules.
> ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
> (malcolm@nag.co.uk)
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:31 EEST