|
Post by olegrand on Aug 5, 2021 16:27:29 GMT
The "Common Knowledge" box on p 46 of the Player's Guide (10th edition - repeated on the recent 12th DW RPG hardback, p 61) is more about KNOWLEDGE (as reflected by certain skills) rather than general skill use. It starts like this:
"Keeping things simple, and having a lower number of Skills, does mean that some of them, especially Craft, Knowledge, Medicine and Science, require a little bit of adjudication on behalf of the Gamemaster."
Of course, nothing prevents you from applying the text that follows to all skills (including Fighting, Marksman etc.) but this is never stated in the text itself.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 5, 2021 17:31:55 GMT
Yes, especially Craft, Knowledge, Medicine, and Science. Notice that they don't tell you that only those four skills require adjudication. That's because things like firing a gun, running, and being persuasive don't involve a lot of technical knowledge. You don't usually encounter situations where you're unfamiliar with doing these things.
It can still apply to them, though, and not because you're changing the rules. If you've never picked up a throwing axe and you suddenly find yourself needing to use one, the GM should give you a -2 penalty or so. You don't know how to use it. But if you're from UNIT and you find yourself with an alien blaster, a moment's familiarization is probably all you need to apply your full Marksman (or Conflict in the second edition) skill to using it, because there isn't a whole lot to know about pointing and shooting.
So no, the Common Knowledge rule doesn't apply only to Craft, Knowledge, Medicine, and Science; it applies especially to them. "Especially" is their word, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Aug 5, 2021 17:37:26 GMT
So no, the Common Knowledge rule doesn't apply only to Craft, Knowledge, Medicine, and Science; it applies especially to them. "Especially" is their word, not mine. OK but that does show that there is some room for interpretation here... that's all I wanted to point out.
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Aug 5, 2021 17:39:49 GMT
So no, the Common Knowledge rule doesn't apply only to Craft, Knowledge, Medicine, and Science; it applies especially to them. "Especially" is their word, not mine. (Also: all the examples given in the Common Knowledge box pertain to Knowledge, Craft et al... but let's not bicker over such minor stuff). As for the unfamiliar weapon example you take, I'd say it's a matter of common sense... and I don't think it changes anything to the fallacious generalization of "Conflict" as a broad skill encompassing anything from fencing to marskmanship and psychic combat (which was the original point discussed a few posts ago).
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 5, 2021 18:04:50 GMT
OK but that does show that there is some room for interpretation here... that's all I wanted to point out. Well, yes, that's the point. The skills that have more to do with knowledge require more interpretation to deal with them, which is why the Common Knowledge rule is especially relevant to them. I mean, look. Martha has an Athletics of 3. Running, jumping, holding her breath... she adds a 3 for all of them, because in her background it's perfectly reasonable to say she can do these things. But if Martha is suddenly called upon to perform a convincing gymnastics parallel bars routine, the GM is likely to say that Martha has never performed on the parallel bars in her life. She played on monkey bars as a child, and she's watched parallel bar routines on TV, so... let's say she's got a -2 to do it. It's similar to something she's done before and she knows something about it, so she's not totally unfamiliar with it, but she's never done it herself. That's all this rule is. The Athletics skill doesn't tell you how good you are at all athletic activities; it only tells you how good you are at the athletic activities you're familiar with. Your background tells you which ones you're familiar with. It would be unreasonable to say that Martha can perform on the parallel bars for the first time in her life with the same skill as a professional gymnast. But that's what you're saying if you don't apply the Common Knowledge rule.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Aug 6, 2021 20:17:17 GMT
Read through most of 2nd Edition.
Not sure we need bonuses due to Focus but sure, why not?
Love the Intuition skill. Had been doing Awareness+Awareness for ‘notice / find things’ roll up till now. Can think of other uses for the skill as well.
Fine with combining Marksman and Fighting. I can use Specializations to differentiate if I need to.
I really love the Experiences and how they are the key to character advancement. Very nice. Looking forward to trying these rules out. I like the much detailed rules for character advancement (even though building a character creation spreadsheet is now going to be much trickier). I love that there is now group XP. Paying for something that the entire group gets to use was a big pain in the ass in 1st Edition.
Dumping or Integrating the majority of Minor (1 point) Traits seems like a good move to me. They were way too micro-manage for a game like this. Most of the negative ones will just be attached to the descriptions of more powerful Distinctions to balance them.
Do I like combining the Major and Special Traits into Distinctions? Not really sure. Still mulling it over. Apparently they are forcing all Major/Special Bad Traits to now be attached to a positive-ish Distinction as some sort of flaw. I guess I can use the old Trait point values as a mathematical way of balancing things so that powerful Traits cost 2 points. Ask me again after I’ve tried to convert some of my PCs and NPCs. I echo what others have said that anyone can pick from a list of Traits but it takes experienced gamers to create (from scratch) balanced Distinctions.
I like the Advantage and Disadvantage rules.
I like that spending a Story Point on your skill check is just Advantage now, instead of getting two whole extra dice. That was pretty unbalanced. (High level characters basically became all powerful if they spent a story point in the old system.)
I like the 1s and 6s rules for adjusting the intensity of success and failure. BUT, once I saw Bilbo’s post about how success and fantastic success will tend to be statistically linked (and likewise for failure and disastrous failure), I decided I will have a separate 2d6 rolled for determining how every success or failure is modulated. So 2d6 will be added up for determining Success/Fail, and another (different colored) will be used for determining the final adjustment of that success or failure (all that Yes, but... and No, and... stuff). I did some test rolls and its pretty fast once you get the hang of it.
The damage system was terrible in 1st Edition (who wants to keep track of 6 different health bars for each PC and NPC???), and 2nd Edition didn’t change any of that, it only added Condition rules on top of it all (so, if anything, its worse). I’ll be sticking with my (much simpler and faster) house rules for Damage. (Though I might steal some of penalties of the Conditions to apply to my system).
I really like the Career, Relationships, and Family downtime rules. Though I don’t think the book pointed out that, if you are running a game in the style of 1960s Dr Who, you wouldn’t want to really use any of these rules (at least not until your adventuring was completely over). But maybe that disclaimer was there and I missed it.
I’m still making up my mind if I like that now every space-time jump requires multiple rolls. Often 3 or more. Is it more ‘accurate’ to the series? Probably. Is it more fun? Not sure yet. They definitely should have had an optional Quick & Dirty Time Travel rules for GM’s who didn’t want to mess with all that.
There were several TARDIS rules that I didn’t recognize from the Time Traveller’s Compaion. But I didn’t check to see if they were really new or if I’d just forgotten.
With the possible exception of them mashing Major and Special Traits into Distinctions, I see the new rules in Second Edition to be an overall win (or at least they are interesting enough that I want to try them out). Going forward I expect my games to be much more 2nd Edition then 1st.
|
|
|
Post by greyhame on Aug 6, 2021 22:16:41 GMT
Now that our group has had a chance to read through the 2nd edition, we've decided (unanimously) to stick with 1st edition and just adopt the few 2nd edition rules that we like. It might mean having to do a bit more work to convert future supplements/adventures, but so be it.
|
|
Catsmate
13th Incarnation
It's complicated....
Posts: 3,751
Favourite Doctors: Thirteen, Six, Five, Two, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, One, Nine...
Traits: Eccentric, Insatiable Curiousity.
|
Post by Catsmate on Aug 7, 2021 9:59:27 GMT
Now that our group has had a chance to read through the 2nd edition, we've decided (unanimously) to stick with 1st edition and just adopt the few 2nd edition rules that we like. It might mean having to do a bit more work to convert future supplements/adventures, but so be it. Yeah, that was our take too. Nothing to make the change worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by markrand on Aug 7, 2021 17:22:09 GMT
I marked "Yes". Of course, I've only played on line. When I play a cat burglar, I actually list what tools he or she is carrying.
|
|
tampahawke
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 92
Favourite Doctors: 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, (12th on revison) *Fugitive "Ruth" Doctor and the WarDoctor-because!!*
|
Post by tampahawke on Aug 7, 2021 17:48:10 GMT
I haven't gotten around to getting the 2nd Ed yet, (mostly due to $$ issues at the moment)--but so far the mentions of it on the various threads on this board haven't been encourging either. so far (admitably without having read 2E)- I'm inclined to stick with 1E (where my hardest decison is trying to figgure out if i need the 12th docs rule book or the Anv special rule book ((which of those two IS better btw? ))-and as others have stated "mine the 2E for ideas"--I DO HOPE that our dicsussions on game will continue to have 1E topics and that our "support" for 1E will continue (not in new books obvioulsy but in pdfs such as the Extra Cannical lines will be continued)---I'm still looking forward to the Cyberman sourcebook with excitement ) ON a side note, I'm shocked that while BBC is officaly reconizing the game on their website for 2E--they NEVER did such a thing for 1E???!!? ((Really? not even once----Disappointed emote had they done so a 2E might have not even been needed for the purpose of generating revenue. when the posts first mentioned a 2E coming i got excited, but now that the acctual product is out, im feeling rather let down by the expected potentioal the idea elicted. Just my two copper based Inter Galactic creds worth..
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Aug 7, 2021 18:16:35 GMT
I haven't gotten around to getting the 2nd Ed yet, (mostly due to $$ issues at the moment)--but so far the mentions of it on the various threads on this board haven't been encourging either. so far (admitably without having read 2E)- I'm inclined to stick with 1E (where my hardest decison is trying to figgure out if i need the 12th docs rule book or the Anv special rule book ((which of those two IS better btw? ))-and as others have stated "mine the 2E for ideas"--I DO HOPE that our dicsussions on game will continue to have 1E topics and that our "support" for 1E will continue (not in new books obvioulsy but in pdfs such as the Extra Cannical lines will be continued)---I'm still looking forward to the Cyberman sourcebook with excitement ) ON a side note, I'm shocked that while BBC is officaly reconizing the game on their website for 2E--they NEVER did such a thing for 1E???!!? ((Really? not even once----Disappointed emote had they done so a 2E might have not even been needed for the purpose of generating revenue. when the posts first mentioned a 2E coming i got excited, but now that the acctual product is out, im feeling rather let down by the expected potentioal the idea elicted. Just my two copper based Inter Galactic creds worth.. Yeah, I must admit I’m quite disappointed with it myself. And I do hope as well they continue to stick with the First Edition for the EU Sourcebooks going forwards
|
|
drinkplentyofmalk
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 50
Favourite Doctors: 4, 7, 8. 9, 11 (If I can't just say 'All of them')
Traits: Insatiable Curiosity, Phobia - Thanatosphobia, Slow Reflexes (Minor), Single-Minded (Major)
|
Post by drinkplentyofmalk on Aug 7, 2021 18:29:25 GMT
I really dig the experiences idea, but it's a bit odd that the phrasing of shared ones expects your characters to know each other pre-TARDIS - implying that most new players (who this is geared towards) would naturally gravitate towards standard present day humans. I feel like with TRPGS becoming more mainstream than ever due to actual play podcasts, the instinctual idea of 'oh, a completely new player to this game would be overwhelmed by jumping into the weird end of things' is a bit of a misjudged assumption given that said actual play podcast fans LOVE to jump into weird, high-concept semi-joke characters that Who would fit perfectly. I could totally see the people in my social circles turning up to session 0 wanting to create Frobishers, Romanas or Nardoles... less so Rose Tylers, Ryan Sinclairs or Lucie Millers. (Not a value judgement on those characters of course, just find it difficult to imagine them making a character SO mundane out of the starting gate.)
Sidenote: perhaps my biggest personal issue with the Chibnall era (so far, at least could improve in S13) has been "I really want to love this cast of characters, but they've barely been integrated into the plots themselves; resulting in them mostly just giving purely mechanical stock dialogue as they run around stock Who plots that aren't actually *about* them." So I'd be lying if I didn't find some childish humour that when this game with a focus on characterization over mechanical function tries to adapt the current cast into it's own terms, they feel really off-kilter... because there genuinely isn't much on-screen material to work with.
Ultimately, I do hope this introduces a lot of new players to the game even if I feel it was made with a ...semi-outdated idea of what The Kids(tm) gravitate towards in trpgs. Still, this does mean we'll get a lot more adventure modules and sourcebooks, which'll be fun.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaconor on Aug 8, 2021 9:43:36 GMT
I feel like with TRPGS becoming more mainstream than ever due to actual play podcasts, the instinctual idea of 'oh, a completely new player to this game would be overwhelmed by jumping into the weird end of things' is a bit of a misjudged assumption given that said actual play podcast fans LOVE to jump into weird, high-concept semi-joke characters that Who would fit perfectly. I completely agree with this. I've GM'ed at least 10 campaigns of this game, sometimes with people with no experience with Doctor Who or even RPGs, and I can honestly say I've never had anybody want to play the sort of "normal, modern-day, boring human" archetype that the book really seems to push. The closest I think it ever came was when one player made a UNIT soldier and another player played as his nagging, elderly mother, who also worked for UNIT. They were still both really interesting and capable characters though, very different from the bus-drivers and hair-dressers C7 seem to think people want to play. Thinking about it, though, maybe that's where they were coming from with their changes to the rules. If Cubicle7 are assuming that everybody is playing as boring humans and just taking Traits like "Brave" and "Attractive" as a substitute for coming up with a personality, then maybe the whole Focus thing does make sense. But that's not how people are playing (in my experience anyway). My groups are taking combinations of psychic abilities, natural weapons, invincibility, teleportation, all of the cool power traits that really need written-down rules in order to work. I wonder if they had reached out to more GMs and groups, and seen how the game is being played in the wild, would they have made the same decisions?
|
|
|
Post by Claude of Axos on Aug 8, 2021 11:22:32 GMT
This pains me to write this post, my first here, under such frustrating and disappointing circumstances, but I think there has been a huge disconnect with Cubicle 7 and us Doctor Who gamers.
To me, there seems to be no rationale for the changes other than the designer's personal choices. According to that podcast, he was playing a lot of the Tales From The Loop RPG and felt that the Doctor Who RPG would benefit from being a more streamlined game. The problem with this is disconnection. If Cubicle 7 had asked the 3000 members on this forum, the answers that they would have received about losing Traits etc. would have probably convinced them not to remove them. Ninja Conor is absolutely right. No one was playing those sorts of characters. Was the second edition even playtested by independent gamers ?!? Didn't any of the points and concerns raised here and elsewhere arise?
I've been running the game since it's first release and no one has ever had issues with too many Traits, maths or anything else that has been removed or remodelled - and this is not just about the Doctor Who RPG. It's about the Vortex System. The Vortex system 1st edition is a great system. I'd rate it as being almost 'perfect'. In my opinion, the only things that the first edition was lacking were some minor clarifications and tidy-ups with Fear Factors, seeing things, and having a good experience system (the second edition experience system is wonderful), and a central unified book of Traits or even a Vortex System Corebook with all the Traits and rules covered. They could have added Focus and Experiences without losing anything.
As pointed out, there isn't any guidance about Regeneration in the book. Nada. Zilch. What happened there? Pretty big error to miss so why the omission? I feel that the Second Edition has unnecessarily lost the things that made Vortex a nearly-perfect game system. The second edition is not 'completely compatible' with the first edition and I fear that C7 has unwittingly made their first edition books obsolete. To me, the second edition feels like a beta version.
It is not my intention to upset anyone or ignore the work that C7 has obviously done on this, and I only write this in the hope that people who can change things will revise their opinions and hopefully not make the same choices again, because there will eventually be a Third Edition. Sorry for the rambling.
|
|
stahlman
3rd Incarnation
Doctor, stop wasting my time, will you?
Posts: 222
Favourite Doctors: second,third,fourth
|
Post by stahlman on Aug 8, 2021 12:05:55 GMT
I tend to agree with you. There seems no reason to bring out a second edition-there have been quite a few iterations of the first edition as it is.
I don't know whether the thinking is to generate new interest in a system that is now 12 years old but the problem there is that the Jodie Doctor splits the fanbase so aligning the game with the 13th Doctor is a bit of a gamble and five minutes after they announced it we all heard that Chibnal and Jodie are off-oops.
|
|
|
Post by Claude of Axos on Aug 8, 2021 14:21:42 GMT
I'm staying with the first edition and using the experience system from the second edition. It's a beautifully simple solution and it's 100% compatible.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Aug 8, 2021 15:12:55 GMT
I'm staying with the first edition and using the experience system from the second edition. It's a beautifully simple solution and it's 100% compatible. I quite agree. Welcome to the boards by the way and I must say that’s a great username you have there. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by Claude of Axos on Aug 8, 2021 17:48:45 GMT
I'm staying with the first edition and using the experience system from the second edition. It's a beautifully simple solution and it's 100% compatible. I quite agree. Welcome to the boards by the way and I must say that’s a great username you have there. 🙂
Thank you! It could have been a worse name. My other choice was 'Terror of the Houghtons'.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 8, 2021 22:39:43 GMT
I feel like with TRPGS becoming more mainstream than ever due to actual play podcasts, the instinctual idea of 'oh, a completely new player to this game would be overwhelmed by jumping into the weird end of things' is a bit of a misjudged assumption given that said actual play podcast fans LOVE to jump into weird, high-concept semi-joke characters that Who would fit perfectly. I'm pretty sure that the only people who listen to a game's actual-play podcasts are those who already play the game and those who are pretty sure they want to and want some confirmation. While the popular joke is that everybody in the world is starting their own podcast, the reality is that a lot of people — I would even guess most — don't listen to them. When mentioning one my wife might like, for instance, her response was, "I wouldn't even know how to do that." That's because you're already an RPGer and you're expecting standard RPG tropes from this one. But I think the Cubicle 7 audience for this game has always started with Doctor Who fans, not RPG fans. They're counting on the overlap, sure, but they're expecting people to want to play the sorts of people they usually see on the screen. So they built a game that lets them do that. It also lets them play Frobisher or Romana or Nardole, but they're not going to go out of the way to make that the default. When one thinks about Doctor Who, one doesn't think of a trip in the TARDIS to save the universe with a shape-changing penguin, multiple Time Lords, and a wimpy dude with a strange anatomy. They think of "The Doctor meets some people and shows them the universe, encountering many dangers along the way." That's one reason why Doctor Who is so successful. The regular cast are mostly ordinary, contemporary human beings, just like the audience. You could be just as magnificent as Rose or Harry or Jamie or Donna, if only you could meet the Doctor. You don't need to be superhuman or ultra-competent to be a companion; you just need to think before you act and have compassion. And that's why players like to play ordinary people in the game.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaconor on Aug 9, 2021 7:51:48 GMT
When one thinks about Doctor Who, one doesn't think of a trip in the TARDIS to save the universe with a shape-changing penguin, multiple Time Lords, and a wimpy dude with a strange anatomy. They think of "The Doctor meets some people and shows them the universe, encountering many dangers along the way." That's one reason why Doctor Who is so successful. The regular cast are mostly ordinary, contemporary human beings, just like the audience. You could be just as magnificent as Rose or Harry or Jamie or Donna, if only you could meet the Doctor. You don't need to be superhuman or ultra-competent to be a companion; you just need to think before you act and have compassion. And that's why players like to play ordinary people in the game. I can see your point. Chibnall-era aside though, I don't think it's ever really been "The Doctor travels with an RPG-party sized group of contemporary Earth people" either. It's generally been The Doctor, with one (maybe two in rare circumstances) normal person, and then any further companions would be quirky aliens or robots or people out of their time. When the Doctor travelled with Rose there was Captain Jack. When he travelled with Amy and Rory, the go-to third companion was River Song. With Bill there was Nardole. Even in the classic series, with the large TARDIS crews of the Fifth Doctor's era, Tegan was the only contemporary Earth person. You had Nyssa (alien noblewoman and genius scientist), and either Adric (alien boy genius mathematician from another universe) or Turlough (yet another alien genius), and, of course, the oft-unseen robot Chameleon. I'm not going to go and do a count, but I think contemporary human companions would actually be in the minority. All of that aside though, just because a TV show requires a relatable human character to be an audience surrogate, I don't think that carries over into gaming. I'm not running my games with experienced gamers. I would say that for at least half the people I've played with, it's been their first RPG. Quite a few of my players have never even seen an episode of Doctor Who. Still, the first question, more often than not, is "What kind of alien can I be?" Even running one-shots, with the pregen character sheets, it's always the Jacks and Rivers and K9s that get snatched up first, and the Roses and Amys and Rorys that are left for whoever arrives late. It makes sense though. The whole game is an exercise in imagination. When you can choose to be pretty much anyone or anything in the universe, why would you want to be a surrogate version of yourself?
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Aug 9, 2021 9:21:54 GMT
The whole game is an exercise in imagination. When you can choose to be pretty much anyone or anything in the universe, why would you want to be a surrogate version of yourself? Excellent point! I also feel that the whole "let's play ordinary modern-era people as companions without bothering about Traits" would have made an excellent introductory, first step approach in, say, a Quickstart version of the game rather than be implicitly presented as the "new normal"... First ed. was literally teeming with possibilities - it allowed you to "game-translate" pretty much any character (from the banal to the outlandish) in a matter of minutes - a feature that acted as a wonderful spark for the imagination of the players and GM alike. And sadly, this spirit seems to have been completely removed/erased from 2E.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Aug 11, 2021 1:11:16 GMT
On further consideration (and an actual conversion and then full play test)...
(With the possible exception of the removal of Major/Special Traits) I'm excited about the new rules and I thought they worked well in play.
Converting Special Traits into Distinctions for a pre-existing Player Character took a bit of work. (A Distinction works out to a Special Trait with a value of something like 5.5 character building points. So the trick to building a Distinction was to combine the various good and bad traits so that they added up to 4 or 5.) But once the conversion was done everything played fairly easily.
My quibble is that - after running an actual session - I'm not sure I like how the Yes, But, and No But results are generated. As in none were generated. We didn't roll any 1s or 6s! This could just be the dice being weird but I missed those more complex outcomes. Might end up going back to the old dice rolling system.
While I like the new rules, I feel the PRESENTATION of the new (and old) rules in the book actually makes it HARDER for inexperienced players to figure out the Game then it would be with 1st Ed. There is a lot of added complexity, and not much simplification to counter balance it. As and experienced GM who is familiar with 1st Edition, I can easily sort out what everything is and where it goes. But I'm skeptical that this would be an easier "First RPG" then 1st Ed was.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Aug 14, 2021 16:53:19 GMT
|
|
bilbo
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 83
|
Post by bilbo on Jan 9, 2022 14:03:03 GMT
Hi folks,
In the new year, I was planning on giving 2e an honest try despite my reservations. But I am having trouble parsing some of the rules though and was wondering if any of you could help. Maybe I’m being too pedantic, but the example below is used to illustrate some of my issues (pg numbers from 2e PDF)...
If the BBEG is shooting at an unaware PC that is running at speed. I would say the TN is 15 to hit a moving target (pg 75). Based on examples of Advantage/Disadvantage (pg 89), I’d say that RAW the BBEG should be at Disadvantage too (though this feels like double jeopardy to me). If the PC sees the BBEG and decides to dodge. The PC would do so at Disadvantage due to the multi-action penalty (pg 92), but would also have Advantage because he was dodging while moving (pg 110). So they would cancel out for no penalty. However, the BBEG would now have Advantage because the PC had Disadvantage on an opposed reaction (pg 92), which would cancel out the BBEG's Disadvantage mentioned above. (even if his 'double jeaopordy' Disadvantage is ignored, it's still a net in the BBEG's favor)
I am reading this right?? If the PC does nothing, the BBEG has Disadvantage, but if the PC dodges, the BBEG has no penalty. Doesn't seem right somehow.
What am I missing?
|
|
Marpzilla
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 10
Favourite Doctors: In order, Third, Fourth, Second.
|
Post by Marpzilla on Jan 10, 2022 19:11:52 GMT
I am reading this right?? If the PC does nothing, the BBEG has Disadvantage, but if the PC dodges, the BBEG has no penalty. Doesn't seem right somehow. What am I missing? Had a look at the bits you've mentioned, I am definitely a little confused by it myself.
Personally, I'd rule it as the PC having no penalty and the Big Bad as at an Disadvantage. It feels like that's the intended spirit of the rule, to encourage focussing more on the chase and making shooting something you have to commit to with a story point or two if you want it to be effective. I'd be happy with that.
|
|
bilbo
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 83
|
Post by bilbo on Jan 12, 2022 16:11:35 GMT
Hm, thanks, that sounds along the lines of what I was thinking. I was hoping to make sense of the rules as written, but I'm still having trouble along those lines...
|
|
Catsmate
13th Incarnation
It's complicated....
Posts: 3,751
Favourite Doctors: Thirteen, Six, Five, Two, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, One, Nine...
Traits: Eccentric, Insatiable Curiousity.
|
Post by Catsmate on Jan 14, 2022 22:25:26 GMT
Wrt The Timeless Library and The Echo Chamber why can't C7, or Rachael Macken and Will Brooks who are credited for Graphic Design and Layout for both books, include proper bookmarks in the PDFs? Seriously in 202x that is beyond sloppy.
|
|
Catsmate
13th Incarnation
It's complicated....
Posts: 3,751
Favourite Doctors: Thirteen, Six, Five, Two, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, One, Nine...
Traits: Eccentric, Insatiable Curiousity.
|
Post by Catsmate on Jan 15, 2022 22:43:52 GMT
Also, wrt The Echo Chamber, a person who writes plays is a playwright, not a playwrite.
|
|