Strange. Very few (actually I think nobody) has argued anything like wanting things 'laid out in stone'. But if would be nice to know if Bab's snarls AT darkness or if she spouts darkness from her Bab Gog Gob. I don't fall into your first group (that I guess you believe everyone arguing this point of view), your second group is much more appropriate; I just need what I feel is sufficient detail and that's not there. As for prefering to fill some of the detail in ourselves, the RPG that gives complete detail is a contradiction in terms. You ALWAYS have to fill in detail, but what you should have as a bedrock is a sensible basis for doing that in the main rulebook, which is not present here.
RQ2 - you had 3 cults detailed very nicely, the entire rules were consistent
and complete throughout
HW - you have, what, 40, (or maybe it's 150 cults!), but they are all very
vague. Uunless you have played RQ2/3 and have the supplements detailing to
you what an Earth cultist is like, or what an Orlanthi acts like etc. it's
hard to know what to do with half of these cults.
I wish you could say about HW that the rules are consistent and complete throughout (as you can about RQ2) which is important for a core rule book. People say as if it an argument ender that you only had 3 cults, but that was more than sufficient for anyone to get up and running big time with it! I for one could not care about having a write-up of Taraltara or Makabaeus in the core rules in place of more detail (SUFFICIENT detail that is ie. what is a Snarl Darkness or Sunset Leap) on the cults that characters I have might actually be in.
Powered by hypermail