A RuneQuest - Main Rulebook Review
- Thread starter Kagan Altar
- Start date
Nice to see such generally well written and extensive reviews. At the risk of being totally anal (Reviewing reviews? How sad am I? very..) I'd say a couple were too generous about the actual game system. The combat table contradiction and doubling rules are pretty basic whoopsies not to mention damage/armour balance/debates about replacing of stat multiplier rolls with lots of resilience types checks etc. It is (Ref to:Initiative mechanism coment..) more like 3rd Ed D+D but not sure that makes it feel any more modern. These game flaws are going round and round on these forums in ever decreasing circles until folk grab a suitable fix/get fed up. Great to see so much effort in the reviews. Just sorry I can't read German! 2nd Age certainly deserves praise. One word review of Ralios. Excellent.
Perhaps they were.
In my opinion, a review shouldn't really comment too much on the ins and outs of the game system. Nor should it comment in detail on errors/mistakes etc. It is just an overview.
Sure, there are problems with the system and it does things in ways I don't always like, but in general it hangs together pretty well.
The place for in depth nitpicking is in forums (such as this one or the RQ-Rules Digest), in website articles that can be as detailed as is required or in fanzine articles, which are limited in space and have editorial restraints.
So, expect to see a lot of rules fixes/house rules on websites and in Wikis, once they've been thrashed out in forums. Some have already appeared, but I can see a lot more coming online in the next few months as the product range expands.
In my opinion, a review shouldn't really comment too much on the ins and outs of the game system. Nor should it comment in detail on errors/mistakes etc. It is just an overview.
Sure, there are problems with the system and it does things in ways I don't always like, but in general it hangs together pretty well.
The place for in depth nitpicking is in forums (such as this one or the RQ-Rules Digest), in website articles that can be as detailed as is required or in fanzine articles, which are limited in space and have editorial restraints.
So, expect to see a lot of rules fixes/house rules on websites and in Wikis, once they've been thrashed out in forums. Some have already appeared, but I can see a lot more coming online in the next few months as the product range expands.
Trifletraxor
Mongoose
Well, the calling the game system "excellent" might still be a bit over the top. It gives some good ideas, but is practically useless unless you make your own "houserule deluxe" version of it.
So far, the 2nd Age stuff has been good. MRQ as a system, the way it's published, etc. Not good. But that's just my opinion.
SGL.
So far, the 2nd Age stuff has been good. MRQ as a system, the way it's published, etc. Not good. But that's just my opinion.
SGL.
Really surprised by the lack of objectivity in the Core book review (bordering on being a little sycophantic)
Agreed, there is a good game in the core book, but it requires work to get to play it... "OK- should be Excellent in the 2nd Edition" would have been a more honest opinion.
And to be honest if I hadn't ordered the coreboook from Waylands Forge (before reading it), I would have bought it in pdf and ignored the printed version entirely.
This is my opinion on the other books not a review
1.Legendary Heroes, Ok does what it says on the cover, but has limitied utility.
2.Companion, is good (I might not like some of the rules- but they gel well) far more useful than Legendary Heroes.. but depends on your games style of play.
3.Monster Book the is a nice product (Illustrations good except for the Pig-nosed Trolls
) , limited utility again but looks cool. 4 & 5. The Railos 'PDF' and GTSA are Excellent.. afew quirks and in the text, and whimsical art work but they're solid product.
6. The Rune of Chaos - Weak as a stand alone adventure, and not really worth its cover price, but could have made a solid addition inclusion as part of a refs guide to MRQ or even as an inclusion in the GMs screen. The adventure isn't bad... just isn't anything special. (Glad, I bought it in PDF).
On the whole Mongoose are doing a good job after a bit of a shaky start, but I can't see the point in producing reviews of a product if your not going to be honest about the product. :?
Kagan Altar
Mongoose
The review precises that this lays out the contents of the actual book and my opinions about these contents. It also precises that my goal was not to compare MRQ with any previous edition (nor other games for that matter).
Not agreeing with this review is perfectly fine, but calling it "sycophantic" borders on insult.
I stand by the things I wrote: MRQ presents an excellent intuitive game system that will appeal to GMs who are not afraid to make a game system their own and will not appeal to GMs who want to have all the loopholes covered. As far as RQ is concerned, I happen to be one of the former, not the latter. Hence the final five stars.
Ok, first off I apologies for the sycophantic comment it was well out of line.
But, I'll stick with the comment that core book is flawed - this is not a comparison with RQ3 or its preds. but the corebook could have been put together a lot better, at some points its damn confusing -but, I'm not going to dredge up previous comments that have be leved against the core book.
Still if you're happy with the corebook, thats good:
But if you're encouraging people to buy MRQ based on the 'excellence' of the core book, they may be discouraged (after reading it) from purchasing the other MRQ books which have far better editing and quality of content.
After reading the review I was left wondering if there was another edition of the core book in circulation.
Well, I wasn't going to wade in on this, but since we're casting stones:
I found the following passage from the review to be bordering on insult:
I have been gaming for almost 25 years now and not touched D&D for over 20. I consider myself an experienced, mature gamer and have no problem houseruling are making rulings on the fly. I have also been one of the voices very critical of some of the content in the rulesbook and felt that that comment was directly aimed at people like me who have complained about the rules. And there are a lot of valid complaints - and I am talking outside of the 'why did they change this or that' gripes.
The fact is that the core rules has some horrible errors. The combat system was so muddled that a clarification pdf had be released almost immediately, and the combat examples in the book, as well as the text in places, contradicts the clarification. The combat tables in the rules contain results that are impossible in the rules as written and only add to the confusion. I could go on, but won't. Mucking up combat (the heart of most rpgs) is bad enough.
Every book has typos and errors that need errata, but honestly the Core Rulesbook is one of the worst messes I have seen in a while. I don't want my hand held like a 10 year old, but I do want the essential rules explained reasonably clearly. Note I have not griped about design decisions or halving or rules changes (well not in this post anyway
).
I cannot see giving the book 5 stars based on the state of it as printed.
I'm not trying to create bad blood, you are obviously an intelligent gamer and you have made some very good posts on here. When you post a public review and ask for comments you get them. I can clearly see why Exubae's 'sycophantic' remark offended you, but overall I agree with what he had to say. And your implication that critics of the system are just being immature really brushed me the wrong way. Much of the criticism has been just plain negative, but alot of it has been in the spirit of improving the game. I for one wouldn't still be here if I didn't want MRQ to do well.
Peace out.
I found the following passage from the review to be bordering on insult:
I have been gaming for almost 25 years now and not touched D&D for over 20. I consider myself an experienced, mature gamer and have no problem houseruling are making rulings on the fly. I have also been one of the voices very critical of some of the content in the rulesbook and felt that that comment was directly aimed at people like me who have complained about the rules. And there are a lot of valid complaints - and I am talking outside of the 'why did they change this or that' gripes.
The fact is that the core rules has some horrible errors. The combat system was so muddled that a clarification pdf had be released almost immediately, and the combat examples in the book, as well as the text in places, contradicts the clarification. The combat tables in the rules contain results that are impossible in the rules as written and only add to the confusion. I could go on, but won't. Mucking up combat (the heart of most rpgs) is bad enough.
Every book has typos and errors that need errata, but honestly the Core Rulesbook is one of the worst messes I have seen in a while. I don't want my hand held like a 10 year old, but I do want the essential rules explained reasonably clearly. Note I have not griped about design decisions or halving or rules changes (well not in this post anyway
).I cannot see giving the book 5 stars based on the state of it as printed.
I'm not trying to create bad blood, you are obviously an intelligent gamer and you have made some very good posts on here. When you post a public review and ask for comments you get them. I can clearly see why Exubae's 'sycophantic' remark offended you, but overall I agree with what he had to say. And your implication that critics of the system are just being immature really brushed me the wrong way. Much of the criticism has been just plain negative, but alot of it has been in the spirit of improving the game. I for one wouldn't still be here if I didn't want MRQ to do well.
Peace out.
soltakss said:
Don't get too comfortable, your next... :twisted:
Actually I have read your reviews. They are pretty solid and concise.
No mention of the editorial deficencies on the core rulebook, and I think you are a bit harsh on the screen - I don't use them either, but everyone who has it loves it, and the fact that it is solid appeals to me (though I suspect Mongoose may have stock in hardcover manufacturing somehow). Plus the Screen gets -20 off the top for having no Gloranthan material which hardly seems fair to me - it's a screen after all.
I guess the lesson here is if you want feedback on your reviews you have to piss someone off in them.
As a system - yes;
But the Core Book, as a stand alone item, no.
(Well not before, you've got a copy of the players guide pdf, thrashed out the rules over the forum, and seen a copy of the companion to plug a few more holes does it work as a system.)
I typed before I thought (which I seem to be doing a lot of rescently), after reading your review, as it wound me up a little-hence my dumb ass 'sycophant' gut reaction response. In hind-sight it was good of you to actually take time to bother to put together a review. I do feel you are expressing your views on the game (after ammendments) as a whole rather than the book in question though.
Kagan Altar
Mongoose
Thank you for the apology. It is accepted, and well noticed.Exubae said:
I agree: the core book could have been put together a lot better. It does have flaws, like any game systems, and there are gaps in the rules. Let me get this clear: I'm not in denial by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't expect everyone to give five stars to the book, clearly.
I do not think, however, that the system is unplayable by any means. I actually do not think that most of the mistakes of the book will generate any great problem in actual play. Experienced (I'll come back later on the definition I attach to the term when answering to Rurik's post) GMs who like intuitive game play will just adjudicate situations on the fly and will take not of this or that houserule they come up with. I'm such a GM. That's why none of the shortcomings of the main rulebook strike me as being game breaking flaws.
I am encouraging people to buy MRQ books indeed. But the "excellence" here is clearly defined. It is an excellent intuitive system for GMs who are not afraid of loopholes and adjudicate game play on the fly. I put it in bold, because whenever any of us speaks of "excellence", it should be, IMO, relative to a precise context. Nothing's "excellent" by just virtue of being (beer excepted of course
). What do I mean by that? Let's take examples. These are just my own opinions, of course:
Vampire The Masquerade's game system is excellent when you want to be able to forget mechanics during game play through its automatic successes' rule. It's also a very clean system in which you basically just have to adjudicate what Attribute gets added to what Skill, or what particular trait would be used (Willpower, Humanity, a Virtue, whatever), for which particular effect and you're done.
D&D Third Edition is excellent in its tactical aspects (so much so that many games, including MRQ or Warhammer FRP2 for instance, try to recreate at least part of its tactical aspects). The way the game components work together might be daunting when you try to adjudicate on the fly, but the intricacies of the system create many, many layers of understanding of the system, variations in actual play, so that the game keeps being interesting for a long while (so long as you're willing to explore its possibilities of course).
MRQ's main system is great to me because it's intuitive. It screams "Play Me" to my ears, to be clear. It's a system that can become a second nature to the GM and players very quickly. It's interface is simple enough to allow for great variations and an ease for adjudication on the fly.
So MRQ isn't great because it's flawless. It isn't great because it'd be immersive or supremely tactical. It's excellent because it's intuitive. That's the feeling I was trying to convey through the review.
GbajiTheDeceiver
Mongoose
Just looking at them now, and one thing I find hard to reconcile is that in your Overview you state "I think there is a lot in RQM that doesn't work" yet you give the Core 20 for everything aside from Gloranthan content.soltakss said:
Availability 20 because I can pop into Birmingham and buy a copy.
Usability 20 because it is probably the easiest set of RQ rules to use so far.
Originality 20 OK, perhaps this is too high, but it isn't just a rehash of RQ2/3 so it is original in that.
General 20 Again, perhaps a little high, but I have probably set the scores a little high to encourage people to buy it.
After all, the resulting score is the roll you should make to buy it and an 85% chance isn't that bad.
Also there are no marks for accuracy or for rules systems themselves. So, even if the rules stank, if they were put together well, were original and available they would probably score highly.
Usability 20 because it is probably the easiest set of RQ rules to use so far.
Originality 20 OK, perhaps this is too high, but it isn't just a rehash of RQ2/3 so it is original in that.
General 20 Again, perhaps a little high, but I have probably set the scores a little high to encourage people to buy it.
After all, the resulting score is the roll you should make to buy it and an 85% chance isn't that bad.
Also there are no marks for accuracy or for rules systems themselves. So, even if the rules stank, if they were put together well, were original and available they would probably score highly.
Kagan Altar
Mongoose
First off, thanks for your input Rurik. It is greatly appreciated!Rurik said:Well, I wasn't going to wade in on this, but since we're casting stones:
I found the following passage from the review to be bordering on insult:
What it does not do is take you by the hand like you're a 10-year-old who would need to be strictly framed by the rules.
I have been gaming for almost 25 years now and not touched D&D for over 20. I consider myself an experienced, mature gamer and have no problem houseruling are making rulings on the fly. I have also been one of the voices very critical of some of the content in the rulesbook and felt that that comment was directly aimed at people like me who have complained about the rules. And there are a lot of valid complaints - and I am talking outside of the 'why did they change this or that' gripes.
The fact is that the core rules has some horrible errors. The combat system was so muddled that a clarification pdf had be released almost immediately, and the combat examples in the book, as well as the text in places, contradicts the clarification. The combat tables in the rules contain results that are impossible in the rules as written and only add to the confusion. I could go on, but won't. Mucking up combat (the heart of most rpgs) is bad enough.
Every book has typos and errors that need errata, but honestly the Core Rulesbook is one of the worst messes I have seen in a while. I don't want my hand held like a 10 year old, but I do want the essential rules explained reasonably clearly. Note I have not griped about design decisions or halving or rules changes (well not in this post anyway
I cannot see giving the book 5 stars based on the state of it as printed.
I'm not trying to create bad blood, you are obviously an intelligent gamer and you have made some very good posts on here. When you post a public review and ask for comments you get them. I can clearly see why Exubae's 'sycophantic' remark offended you, but overall I agree with what he had to say. And your implication that critics of the system are just being immature really brushed me the wrong way. Much of the criticism has been just plain negative, but alot of it has been in the spirit of improving the game. I for one wouldn't still be here if I didn't want MRQ to do well.
Peace out.
I know you're not trying to create bad blood.
I see two parts in your comments about my review. I will take them separately, if you don't mind.
One is relative to the errors in the book and the way the book has seen publication which de facto tells you that this Main Rulebook does not deserve 5 stars. I can see your point of view, and I'm sure many people will agree to that. It's logical and understandable.
Based on these criteria, I would have probably put a 4 or 3 stars instead of 5, but it was not my standpoint while writing the review. When writing the review, I was asking myself how this or that component of the game system would affect this or that aspect of the actual play around the game table.
When looking through the rulebook with that idea in mind, I could see none of the flaws that would be detrimental to the actual play. I wasn't thinking in terms of hunting down mistakes (and there are some, we both know that - I fully acknowledge it), but rather in terms of how these mistakes could be worked out by an experienced GM, and I've seen none that couldn't be quickly and neatly houseruled during the game.
The bottom line, really, is that MRQ's main rulebook appeals to my imagination and makes me want to play it. I see nothing there that scares me or makes me think "gee, that system is broken". I just put my comments here and there, put a few houserules together before playing it, and I'm set.
I'll stop there. I think we can both understand now how our takes on MRQ may be as different as they are.
The second part was the remark: What it does not do is take you by the hand like you're a 10-year-old who would need to be strictly framed by the rules.
That's a whole another matter because it's more a question of how the remark was perceived as an insult directed at people criticizing the game rather than whether or not the point of the sentence is correct (and it is, I stand by that).
Let me say it without turning around the topic: It was a remark targeted at people waiting for the theoretical game system to answer all the questions for them, and particularly rules lawyers who want nothing less than to be spoon-fed with the game's mechanics, whether these are running MRQ, D&D or whatever other RPG. It was targeted at a precise kind of gamer who could read this review, and yes, it wasn't meant to be a "nice-nice" remark.
To understand where I come from, I'm going to talk a bit about what makes an "experienced GM" from my point of view, but first, I'd like to talk about what is not making one.
What is not making an experienced GM, in my opinion, is the number of years the GM has been running a game. I've seen GM running games for the first time and be really good at it. I've seen GMs with 20+ years of experience who ... should have known better to say the least, whether when running one-shot sessions or full-fledged campaigns.
Do you get more decent GMs out of people who have years of experience with RPGs rather than newbies? Sure, but that's rather incidental, I think.
What makes an experienced GM?
- As a GM, you have run many different types of games and strive to master them all. You are not a one-trick pony. You develop your skills like an athlete develops his own: by acknowledging your weaknesses, working at them, overcoming them and changing them into advantages.
- A deep understanding of the nature of RPGs. This means you master rules and gameplay, yes, but also social interaction, refereeing, and so on. You become a great host, because you can be welcoming, stimulating to the players input to the game, but you also can get clear and bring forth your confidence as soon as something or someone crosses the line of decency in such a social event.
- A curiosity about people and their imaginations. Not only his own, but the ones of the players as well. An experienced GM developed a great empathy for other people and can feel them in rather amazing ways.
- That bears repeating, but the experienced GM is confident in his/her own skill. This means that you try things out with a system, try things out with other types of feels or inspirations you are exposed to. This goes back to my first point about the willingness to work on weaknesses and develop skills rather than just becoming a one-trick pony.
There are other components, but that's sufficient to explain what I'm talking about when I'm thinking of "experienced GM". These are GMs that developed an understanding of the ins and outs of all the aspects of RPGs. Doesn't matter how many years that takes.
As always, when reading a criticism of a certain approach to a certain topic, it's best to understand the context in which it is scribbled.
My MRQ review was meant to talk about something else than D&D. For me, these are two different types of games with two very different sets of expectations. Sometimes, when reading some of the negative input regarding MRQ, I feel like I'm reading points brought by rules lawyers reading D&D supplements and discussing over and over about the Ranger, whether its over or underpowered, or whether the Radiant Servant of Pelor is truly broken, or which variation of the Incantatrix is the best in the context of the rules.
Rules criticism, when it is constructive, is great and needed. If people feel your input is valuable to them, then it is. Don't mind my remark and don't take it to yourself.
I'm getting a bit off track here. Let me put it this way: what I truly dislike about people bashing rulebooks is the theoretical aspect these debates usually have. I'm the kind of GM who values practice over theory, who values the craft rather than the maths behind the scenes. That's where I come from. I hope it makes you understand my remarks better.
Can rules criticism be constructive in some instances, and do we need that kind of constructive criticism? Yes, I agree at 120 % (I wonder if that means I'll have to halve my percentage in opposed tests...
). Could rules criticism be more constructive than it already is? I have to say yes.Now could players and GMs enjoy MRQ as an intuitive system when they're not afraid to come up with adjudications on the fly? They can. Can they consider the system to be excellent as it fits their needs for an intuitive system? Yes. Does the system try to answer all the questions and detail everything for you? No, it's not. Was it part of the design goals? I'm sure some of the mistakes weren't intended, but I'm also pretty sure that the intuitive part of the system was part of the game design (the different styles of damage for weapons for different styles of gameplays you can find in Signs and Portents, written by Matthew Sprange, tell me much in terms of intents behind the game system here - maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but that's what I feel).
Does the rulebook take you by the hand like D&D's Third Edition Players Handbook tries to do? No, it does not.
If you felt offended by my remark, I apologize. I should have known better and have explained more what I meant. I thought the statement was self-explanatory, and it wasn't.
And sorry for the long, excruciating post. I thought it was needed.
Cheers,
Similar threads
