RAG Size

From: Dennis Hoover (SMS) (71736.77@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Wed 09 Feb 1994 - 02:44:42 EET


( Dennis Hoover <dhoover@bix.com> )

Something is seriously amiss if we're cutting sorcery to make room for ducks!
;-)
PLEASE keep sorcery in the basic rules. The variety and richness of magic in
RQ is one of its best points.

David Dunham writes:
>>When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're
>>going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not.

Remember New Coke. I know a number of RQ2 players who never bought RQ3.
It would certainly be possible to screw up RQ4 to where I wouldn't buy it. After
seeing
RQ4 at the Con I feel much better about it, but some of the talk about cutting
things is starting to make me nervous.

Personally, I like a substantial tome (with emphasis on the "a"), like the
new-bound Deluxe
edition, when I buy a game. I just don't believe you can do a decent rules
system with a rich
background in a skinny book. Guy Robinson suggested a rules-only booklet (no
Glorantha)
in addition to the complete RAG as more targeted marketing. Now THAT could be
done in
a skinny book. I wouldn't buy it, but maybe it would hook some people on RQ and
later they
would buy the complete RAG.

The quality of RQ:AiG is FAR more important than the size. The new RQ3 deluxe
edition book
weighs in at 280 pages with very little Glorantha. I don't see how it would be
possible to
put in substantially more Glorantha and at the same time cut the size by 1/3.
Supplements
are not a good solution, at least not for the core rules. Everyone I know hates
buying a
game and not getting all the rules. Also, the game stores won't give us the
shelf space
for an AD&D-like Fighter's Tome, Sorcerer's Tome, etc. RQ4 must be complete, and
it must
fit in one volume.

Dennis.

0,,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:34:36 EEST