[Rq-rules] Runequestpt

[Ashley Munday]

I was quite relieved to find Ken Hite's writing the
game. Hopefully there's a chance that it'll be okay
rather than a cack handed d20 ish pile of wank with
percentage dice.

Hopefully he's got the clout to make sure it's good
and the balls to resist the Ian Livingstoneque
hyperbole that seems to surround Mongoose.

As I vowed to never support Mongoose again after their
fuhrer described them as the next Games Workshop* I'll
have to wear dark glasses and a mac when I go and buy
a copy. If it's any good that is.

Cheers,

Ash

* A certain representative had a bit of sense of
humour failure when I asked if this included buying
the lease on people's premises out from under them,
retaining paid for stock and burning your warehouse
down for the insurance money.

--- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote:

> >According to a thread on RPGNet, I am told, 
> Mongoose decided they weren't
> getting useful feedback and pulled the plug.
> >Certain people (I am not one of them, despite
> Mongoose's claims of Greg
> and I  having oversight) have been invited to a
> group that Mongoose is
> running.
> 
> Mongoose were always entitled to do pretty much
> whatever they wanted with
> the Yahoo Group - what I find sad is that Matt
> Sprange couldn't spare the
> few seconds required to empty the Yahoo Group and
> lock it down with  a
> single post remaining saying "thank you, we've now
> switched to a private
> playtest"; rather than just delete the group and
> leave everyone to find out
> via RPGNet or wherever. Good manners cost nothing,
> other than goodwill...
> 
> >I talked to Ken Hite, who wrote the most recent set
>  of the rules. He said
> he took what Mongoose gave him and made it as much
> like  classic RQ as
> possible.
> 
> Can I just say, given how snippy Matt Sprange got
> when various people
> (including myself) queried why early iterations were
> changing things from
> RQII/III (for no good reason, as far as we could
> see), that I find this
> _deeply_ ironic?
> 
> > We'll see what happens from there.
> 
> Indeed, but with myself at least Mongoose have (yet
> again...) blotted their
> copybook. If it's "number compatible" with RQII/III
> I'll still be
> interested in particular sourcebooks, and as ever
> what will actual count is
> the actual product on the FLGS shelf.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nick Middleton
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>