QuestWorlds SRD

[glassneedles]

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

There is a general QuestWorlds group, and Ian posts from his personal account as Chaosium isn't his day job. Crossposting from Facebook isn't possible, likewise wading through the non-linear way FB orders messages searching for Ian's posts is time consuming. Copying a thread is messy and always needs editing (I've only blanked names):

Thanks for doing that David, it's very much appreciated. I understand crossposting takes extra time and I'd much rather you guys work on new material rather than making sure every social media format is fully updated. 

Also didn't realise Quest World was on Github! I am already on there so shall check it out. Thanks for the tip 🙂

[Steve]

Version 0.95 is up at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

 

[Steve]

Sequences update. Version 0.962 is up at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

[Hteph]

I'm not sure I follow the "5.2 Sequence" stuff, there are appearances of "Resource" here and there, like in 5.2.2 Scored Sequence Outcomes and in 5.2.1.2 Resource Point Knowledge I assume it should be Resolution Point instead ... or have I missed something from earlier in the document?

I would rise a Github issue but I'm uncertain if I missed some connection.

[Hteph]

I'm also a bit uncertain on the 5.3 Wagered rules. As you lose AP calculated from your own wager unrelated to the opponents wager, is there ever a reason for betting more than one? Wasn't it the opponents bet that you lost back in HW days?

<Trying to find my HW books>

[Richard S.]

3 hours ago, Hteph said:

I'm also a bit uncertain on the 5.3 Wagered rules. As you lose AP calculated from your own wager unrelated to the opponents wager, is there ever a reason for betting more than one? Wasn't it the opponents bet that you lost back in HW days?

<Trying to find my HW books>

It's worded a little weirdly in the SRD, but I believe the intent is still the same as in HQ1, where both sides stand to lose the same amount of AP. So if you only bet 1 AP sure you'll take barely any "damage" if you lose, but if you win your opponent will also take barely any.

[Hteph]

It will probably be easier to parse with an example in the finished book. But perhaps an editorial pass could be done, because I find it a bit difficult to understand.