From: bradfurst@aol.com
Date: Wed 02 Feb 1994 - 19:34:36 EET
from Brad Furst
Newton from UC442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Sun Jan 30 23:32:45
1994 notes
"I bet you've changed move rates to fit the 6 sec. round;
why change the move rates and not the rates of fire?
What was so wrong about the RQ3 12 sec. round that made
you decide to scrap it and use this strange 6 sec.
(approx.) thing? (If this has already been thoroughly
fought out, I don't want to dredge up old boring stuff
from last year; I am curious as to the reasons for the
change, though.)"
Oliver From JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU replies
"One of RQIII's big problems is that you can cover 30
meters in the time it takes to exchange a single set of
blows, which leads to a number of problems."
What problems? Please specify. A heavywight boxing match has
fewer telling blows in its 3-minute round than RQ in five
rounds. I expect your own experience in martial arts shows
such also.
Peter Maranci inquires
David Dunham coreectly shows the
"About the function of this playtest list: should we
note when we agree with a point that we see? Is volume
of agreement something Oliver and Co. need to know? I've
seen a number of points I've agreed with, and in fact
some points I wanted to make have already been made by
someone else. Should I register my opinion anyway?
Maybe some sort of simplified Yes/No endorsement system
using the subject lines only should be used."
I myself would indeed choose to see that affirmative
endorsements are registered here. I will do so (see here).
Peter then declares
"I much preferred the old version of Shimmer. No, that's
not strong enough -- I REALLY preferred the old -5%/point
Shimmer, and so does everyone I know."
And DDunham@radiomail.net at first agrees
"I think most of our gaming group does too. However, one
pointed out that the current spell does mean that the
attacker can just roll normally, without having to worry
about the defender's spells, which is a useful speedup/
simplification.
I have always been annoyed at the RQ2 "Defense" and the
subtractive Shimmer. I want attack rolls to be straight-
forward and arithmetic-scarce. I much prefer the newer
Shimmer. Let's (for me) call the old spell "Defense" since
its parameters match the Defense of RQ2.
SHIMMER (Variable, Ranged, Passive)
This spell blurs and distorts the target's visual image
making it easier for them to evade a foe's attacks. Each
point adds 10 percentiles to the target's Dodge skill and
5 percentiles to the target's parry skills.
"Bottom line: ducks would be nice, but there's no space.
You all disagree on my prioritization. But if I'm right
and adding more and more worthy stuff makes RQ:AiG LESS
good, what would you cut to allow ducks to fit?"
Indeed, let us each declare our own priorities. I would start
by cutting back on anything that can be obtained from *any*
other RQ3 source than the _Deluxe_Edition_ (for example, magic
items that can be found in _Elder_Secrets_). Occasional
redundant reiterations for clarification or completion *must*
be weighed against that which cannot be obtained elsewhere,
like Ducks (I know there is a tiny bit in E.S. but ducks are
not listed in the table of contents of E.S.)
Michael Schwartz c/o tfalk@sils.umich.edu notes that
"Aldryami and Mostali are very inhuman species in
RQ...not very enjoyable to play except when the entire
campaign is based around the particular culture, or the
PCs are outcasts....
and David Cheng requests
"So, find some room for the Ducks. I could make an
argument for cutting Aldryami or Mostali, as both these
races have less interaction with humans on a day-to-day
basis. But I don't think it will come to that."
Note that Aldryami and Mostali have more than enough (except
good art) in _Elder_Secrets_. Speaking of ducks, I wonder if
duck-lovers have obtained *RQ Adventures Fanzine* from
grendel@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
Put up or shut up.
I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net
"I don't see Mastakos, Gagarth, Polestar as important
cults; put it on the "remove due to space limits" list.
None of them can be played with this volume anyway (since
they provide rune magic not in this work)."
And again I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net
"And the 1.5* damage is confusing....
I much like
"It might be simpler to allow two rolls for damage, pick
the highest."
JM is quoted:
Even *advanced* societies of antiquity, with coin and
currency systems, conducted the bulk of trade,
especially on a lower level, with barter. This is the way
the people would think, buy and sell.
This is very misleading. Advanced societies of antiquity
traded commodities "in kind" but fixed the values according to
weight (often precious metal). Most of the extant documents
of Egyptians or Babylonians or whoever simply record endless
lists of agreements of Merchant-A, who will give up (for
example) grain valued at 3 shekels, and Merchant-B, who will
give (for example) cloth valued at 2 shekels and papyrus
valued at 1 shekel.
Perhaps Joerg Baumgartner is an iconoclast like me. He
from BradFurst@aol.com
reminded us
"Don't fix what ain't broken!"
Paul Reilly responded (about dice rolling, but appropriate
generally)
"There's nothing wrong with your proposed way, except
that thousands (I hope) of RuneQuesters are used to doing
it another way....
Same argument can be made elsewhere - there is a
certain cost in changing anything over, and the new way
should be a distinct improvement, in some sense, if it is
to replace the old way.
RQ3 fatigue needed to be fixed. RQ3 sorcery need to be fixed.
Much of the other stuff after that, maybe we could leave well
enough alone. Time and movement was okay with me in RQ3; AP
and ENC was okay with in RQ3; six kilograms per SIZ was okay
with me.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:37 EEST