From: Andrew J. Weill (aweill@netcom.com)
Date: Sun 13 Feb 1994 - 02:01:26 EET
On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote:
> In short, my proposal, by eliminating treatment of special combat techniques
> as a skill, attacks both the question of whether it is worth it for masters
> to learn special attacks, and the use of special attacks as a form of
> torpedo {i.e. a cheap but chancy equalizer to help inexperienced characters
> bring down masters}. It offers masters something we have some experience
> with, that adds flavor to the game, and may increase the decisiveness of
> master vs master combat.
>
> I am reluctant to see entirely new optional rules, even very promising
> looking ones, added to the system at this stage. It will be hard enough
> figuring out the implications of what is in RQ IV AiG now, in time to put
> them in something for GenCon release. I don't see how we have time to
> figure out the implications of imprecise new proposals such as Andy's. From
> bitter experience with, among other things the RQ II experience system, I
> can assure everyone that it is hard to figure out the results of even the
> best looking rules.
>
I completely agree with Ray for the short term. I am simply proposing
something which could easily be a supplement, and can be an interesting
flavor for future scenarios. I would hope, however, that the imprecise
idea could be mentioned in the GM'ing chapter. We need to give some
guidance to GM's on how to run with the rules and make them their own...
---Andy Weill
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:10 EEST