In a message dated 98-05-18 15:03:48 EDT, you write:

> What you don't seem to understand is that there are a couple score
> people contributing to this list and probably many times that much lurking
> out there. Whatever is said here is not law, it isn't even "official", If
> you like it, use it. If not, don't. I'd doubt that many people haven't
> applied more than five new rules to their campaigns.
>
Of course you are right on this point. However, what I was trying to get at
was that it would be nice to see the questions and problems that pop up with
the game be solved by using new interpretations of the original rules set, as
much as possible. This way, if someone needs an answer to a question he can
have it without having to add new "house" rules.

For instance: "I want to re-create Hadrian's wall." Instead of answering,
"Well, just add this here nifty new rule:", one might answer, "You can use the
Build action to begin this project, but be sure to meet with your DM to settle
on costs and effects." Or even, "Here's some costs and effects for large
Build projects undertaken in our campaign:".

See what I mean?

- -DKE