[RQ-Rules] Re: Trade Rune

[Peter Maranci]

* rjmeints at aol.com <http://aol.com> wrote:
 
> Peter then seeks information from Chaosium...
> ...I am quite certain that their involvement in the project will probably 
> be 0.00%.
> 
  No doubt. But I've already been snarked at and scolded for not having 
thoroughly documented everything I say on that thread over at RPGNet, so I'm 
going the extra mile. Chaosium hasn't replied to me, by the way; they almost 
never do. I'm not sure why that is. I actually have never met anyone who 
works there now, unless I ran into them at RQ Con 1 and forgot about it. I 
hope I didn't offend anyone back then!
  
> There is a high probability that the DBRP book will basically be a lot 
> like RQIII, if the monographs are anything to go by.
> 

 Apparently they aren't. Jason posted that he and his co-author weren't made 
aware of the monograph reprints before they started work on DBRP, and that 
DBRP will NOT be RQIII nor (and I'm a little shaky on this), BASED on RQIII. 

  I'm going to try to stop speculating about all this, though, because A) 
too many people have said one thing, and then reversed themselves (not you, 
Jason), B) the odds seem very good that there's some lying going on, and C) 
I'm sick of trying to figure out what everyone really means. It's not worth 
the tsuris.
  I'll see if I can become a playtester for both games, so at least I'll 
have a better idea of what's going on - even if I won't be able to talk 
about it.
  Oh, on another tack: someone asked about the Trade rune in the RQ font? I 
can confirm that it's #, i.e. shift-3.
  ->Peter
-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm