From: Andrew J. Weill (aweill@netcom.com)
Date: Sun 20 Feb 1994 - 21:39:35 EET
On Sat, 19 Feb 1994 guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org wrote:
> Having used all three previous versions of RQ rules, it seems to me I like the
> proposed version not as much as any one of them, based on what little I've
> heard so far. (I didn't get to RQ-CON, so I don't have any real details.
Really, I think that the areas of general agreement far outweigh the
subset of issues debated. The RQ engine needs tuning if the market is to
support it ...
> play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules.
Judging RQ:AIG without reading it and based solely on this forum is not
> (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off).
>
I absolutely agree that Glorantha needs sourcebooks, not rules. But
there's no Glorantha sourcebooks unless there's an RQ market. RQ:AIG is,
to at least this reader of the product, a huge step in the right
direction so that there will be a market to support Sartar packs, Lunar
campaigns, etc.
fair to the product. If I had only learned about Yale from a group of
committed alumni talking about its problems and how to address them, I
would never have gone there.
---Andy Weill
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:39 EEST