From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Wed 09 Feb 1994 - 05:18:10 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 - 20:34:39 EEST