Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMiddleton
And speaking as one of the play testers, I'm kicking myself for not spotting these ambiguities at the time. *sigh* sorry all.
[...]
It might be worth going back to teh SB5 / Elric1 approach and having separate tables for spell out the Att vs. Parry and Att vs. Dodge principles.
[...]
What's particularly galling is that (unlike MRQ), Jason / Chaosium haven't tweaked anything substantial at the 11th hour... But you are absolutely right, this needs to be absolutely crystal clear.
Cheers,
Nick Middleton
|
Hi Nick!
Thanks for your input - it's good to hear from someone who was on the playtest. First - can I really make it clear I'm not moaning or having a go at all. I think we're all well aware we're working with a proof copy here, and aware of just what that implies - and as Jason himself has said, this is the perfect time to get some fresh pairs of eyes on the MS and make sure any last minute stuff is caught and dealt with (I'm paraphrasing wildly - sorry Jason!
). No need to apologise or anything - it's just quite cool us lot also get to do our bit with last minute spit & polish!
I think your suggestion of separate tables, etc, is probably spot on. Anything, in fact, to make a real idiot sheet to spell out exactly what happens will help my addled old brain, and also make it that much easier on the newbies.
I agree that your point about Jason / Chaosium not tweaking anything. This is why I've absolute confidence that there's nothing seriously amiss here - we all know the rules work, it's just a question of editing and nothing more. Unlike MRQ, where I began to get a terrible sinking feeling that the dear old thing had been seriously screwed about with and hadn't been adequately playtested in quite a few key areas... nuff said, this ain't an MRQ discussion!
Onward!
Cheers,
Sarah