From: Dennis Hoover (SMS) (71736.77@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Wed 09 Feb 1994 - 02:44:42 EET
( Dennis Hoover <firstname.lastname@example.org> )
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
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
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
in addition to the complete RAG as more targeted marketing. Now THAT could be
a skinny book. I wouldn't buy it, but maybe it would hook some people on RQ and
would buy the complete RAG.
The quality of RQ:AiG is FAR more important than the size. The new RQ3 deluxe
weighs in at 280 pages with very little Glorantha. I don't see how it would be
put in substantially more Glorantha and at the same time cut the size by 1/3.
are not a good solution, at least not for the core rules. Everyone I know hates
game and not getting all the rules. Also, the game stores won't give us the
for an AD&D-like Fighter's Tome, Sorcerer's Tome, etc. RQ4 must be complete, and
fit in one volume.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:34:36 EEST