From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Sun 23 Jan 1994 - 07:54:12 EET
> INTRODUCTION
> I like it, but it seems odd to see this huge essay (14 pp of 10
> point Times) on Glorantha, including a bibliography, in the
> chapter that is supposed to entice new readers to buy the book. I
> made the same error in the 1st draft of my own book, so I'm
> sensitive to it. The essay itself is terrific if the reader has
> already committed to Glorantha (bravo!), but I think that the
> message of an INTRODUCTION should be, "This Game Is FUN. Buy It,"
> rather than "This game is like studying history." Keep the
> Glorantha essay and all the other stuff, but put it in its own
> chapter; chapter 15 should have all the deep Glorantha info, not
> just part of it. That said, it wouldn't hurt to start RQ4 with an
> *brief* overview of Glorantha (no more than 2 pages) like that in
> the beginning of RQ2.
>
Yes, the introdiction should be real brief, and start from the point of view
of 'this is the sort of things you do, this is what you can be, this is what
you can meet', rather than 'this is an interesting universe with a long and
rich and complex history'.
> Random Method of Character Creation
> Do you really want to make "4d6 keep the top 3d6 as in
> AD&Dv1" the standard method of rolling characters? I think it
> should be optional, as with all the other methods presented. IMO
> the standard method should be to roll the characteristics
> straight, as we RQers have always done. Bypass the trap of stat
> inflation.
>
Well, 4d6 shoose three should be merely a suggested option. Some people like
higher than average stats (it helps explain why so many PCs end up as Rune
level :-))
> Battle Magic vs Spirit Magic
>
Agreed with all of Lorens comments, and double for hating the term 'Battle
Magic' (I'm not repeating myself, am I :-))
> Adventurer Culture/Profession Tables
>
After Lorens enthusiastic comments I await with great interest, and I only hope
it retains the flexibilty of the second draft, while being better organised.
> Skill versus Skill
> If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this
> section let's do it. How about we use the rule given in Sun
> County and the other recent RQ3 publications? If two characters
> use skills against each other and both succeed, then whoever
> rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule
> that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style
> "highest success wins" rule, and to be frank I'd rather have a
> quick, consistent and reasonable rule than a perfect rule with
> extra die rolling and a table consultation.
>
An extra 'meta-rule' which might be worthwhile adding is that specials always
beat sucesses and criticals always specials, etc. This stacks the adds slighly
in favour of high skills more than at present, but that is not too bad. It
also means than people with skills over 100% continue to gain an advantage,
albeit small.
> TIME AND LEARNING
I am glad to see that this has improvd, it definately needed work.
> COMBAT
> I'm still skeptical of the new combat phase structure, but it's a
> lot better than the move by SR rules in RQ3 (since 2 movement
> phases are better than 10) so I'll give it a try. It also appears
> to be aimed at those who play out their battles with miniature
> figures on a battleboard, and I don't play that way. Try to keep
> in mind that not all RQers collect, paint, and use miniature
> figures.
>
Actually, I use Lego Men (the mediaval ones, of course), and I have recently
received email from somone who not only also uses Lego figure, but
built a model of Gringles Pawnshop from Lego :-)
But we need two sets of rules, really, a figure and a non-figure set.
>
> Weapons Tables
> These are quite good. It's hard to imagine improvements in
> the weapons tables, but these manage it. To be specific, I like
> the Category/Group distinction and the percentage relationships
> between similar weapons. One thing seems odd, though. Are sling
> stones and bullets really impaling weapons as implied by the note
> at the bottom of that table? Also, since bolos are used by the
> Bird-Lizard-riding pygmies of Prax, shouldn't they be included on
> the weapons tables? I thought only outlandish weapons were to be
> excluded from the main weapons tables. BTW, have you thought
> about including comprehensive weapon and armor tables in an
> appendix, with all the outlandish items that would never be found
> in a Manirian or Lunar campaign but are a necessary part of a
> world-spanning campaign or one set on another game-world?
>
Please make this table comprehensive, and include all the obscure weapons.
You may not use Naginata or Long-bows in your Gloranthan campaign, but they
may well crop up in mine (for example, longbows were quite available in my
Fronelan campaign, from the Rathorelans).
I approve of having a Glorantha based product in as much as you put
extra things in, but please don't leave stuff out because it doesn't fit
your idea of a Gloranthan camapign.
Have a short section on weapon availabilty if you really want to
make the point clear.
> Is it necessary to mention that the various metal armors are
> made of Bronze? You don't mention that all the weapons are made
> of Bronze, yet it's equally true. They may be bronze in
> Glorantha, but that is *assumed* in Glorantha, and it makes the
> table impossible to use as-is on other game-worlds. While we
> rightly want to emphasize Glorantha, we should not create
> additional barriers against those who would use RQ4 with other
> worlds.
>
Same point as before, don't make life unnesessarily difficult for the
non-Gloranthans.
>
(parts of Lorens post that I either agreed with or did not have strong
opinions on I simply deleted)
> whoah,
> +++++++++++++++++++++++23
> Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
> "Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite
>
Cheers
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:42 EEST