From: Steven E Barnes (akuma@netcom.com)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 1994 - 23:18:37 EET
>>One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook
>>(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready).
Let me cast my vote against this.
> I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the
>basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax).
>This would be better for several reasons:
>
>1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few
>in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_
>buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers
>to buy rules they don't need.
Not all GMs want to run Orlanthi in Dragon Pass. Besides, it
gives those Lunars, traditionally cast as bad-guys, an extra edge.
For me, Sorcery was one of the reasons why I bought RQ3. Of course,
after reading the rules, my friends and I had some good laughs, and
put the game into storage. It is very important to me that RQ have a
published, working set of Sorcery rules.
I for one, will probably never use Shaman, but I'm glad they are in
>2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan
the rulebook, in case I change my mind.
>characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules.
>Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their
>powers well-known. Galvosti, for example.
This issue won't be solved by having separate suppliments, as the players
can just get their hands on "The Compleate Sorceror", or "Western Pack"
and read it themselves.
-steve
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:42 EEST