From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Mon 14 Feb 1994 - 01:20:44 EET
Nick Brooke, commenting briefly on Sunday's postings.
I too like the "replacement for Berserk" spell, and hope we can use it.
I enjoyed Boris's suggestion on "Cultural Initiations" a lot. Must think
through the ramifications, but this does seem to make more sense than the
current rules, with very little effort required to describe the new way of
doing things. OTOH, if it can't be fitted it'd make a great optional rule.
Forward compatibility with a hypothetical Tunguskan edition of RQ:AiG is
So I repeat: can *anyone* out there quote me one published work that uses
not a high priority for me, V.S.. Backwards compatibility with the English
language is. So far I note one quibble but no defenders for the shaman-as-
plural school. Ignore Oliver's references to "Frazier": in my short edition
of Frazer's (shorter) Golden Bough, the two indexed mentions of a "shaman"
are plainly singular in context. This is an exercise in wool-pulling.
"shaman" as a plural? Frazer doesn't, Eliade doesn't, Campbell doesn't, and
RuneQuest hasn't (until now). Nobody I have read uses this. I have read
enough to make this worth saying. Please, please, please can O.J. confirm
that this error won't appear in the final text!?
I am sorry this is still an issue.
====
Nick
====
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:13 EEST