Re: [dq-rules] Draft Table of Contents [long]

[rthorm@cornellbox.com]

Hi John--

I was having similar thoughts as I was putting this all together.  The new
numbering scheme actually has 100 times the capacity as the old one (assuming
that  SPI's scheme was two digit rules from 1-99), and maybe the new system is
too much of a jump.  On the other hand, it should be possible to put new rules
in and keep them in sequence without too much difficulty.

I also agree that some things seem out of place, such as the Horse Trading you
mentioned.  But I wanted to lay things out just to see how they looked at
first.  
I am approaching this with Second Edition rules, plus Arcane Wisdom and Poor
Brendan's Almanac as my base.  So I did my layout working from that standpoint.
 If you prefer not to use Time Magics, you can just leave it out.  (That's what
I do with Illusionists in my campaign, but that's another old topic.)

Looking at it, I think that some of the decisions in the original layout were
based on Redmond Simonsen trying to get everything to fit well in the three
spine-stapled books.  And I believe that is why Consequences (84) is tucked
back in Book 3 (to name one obvious example), rather than being found in Book
2, which makes much more sense. 

 

Quoting "J. Corey" <john@dragonquestadventures.com>:

> This is a great start!  I would recommend that we leave out things that 
> are not yet part of the canon (I know we had a long discussion about 
> this a while back), such as time magics, until we get the basics down.  
> Perhaps what we could do is recreate the basics, and then create 
> functional rules for additions.
> 
> Also, some of the things you have seem to high on the list.  Horse 
> trading is perhaps a sub set of something else.  Explain how a third 
> number would work in this system again?
> John C.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.