[DELUXE RQ] Things We'd Like to See

[weasel_fierce]

reason Im asking, and I apologize if it sounded snarky, is that the "current" view of magic in Glorantha, as shown by Heroquest, is a lot different from Runequest magic was. With the advent of Folk magic in the players guide, MRQ is rather close to that

 

[Sinisalo]

reason Im asking, and I apologize if it sounded snarky, is that the "current" view of magic in Glorantha, as shown by Heroquest, is a lot different from Runequest magic was. With the advent of Folk magic in the players guide, MRQ is rather close to that

When I get Blood of Orlanth and I find NPCs with folk Magic I will readily agree with you. Here's hoping.

 

[Rurik]

The Summoning Rules from Cults of Glorantha 2 seem to clearly be intended to apply to Divine Magic and Sorcery (and Rune Magic by extension if there are indeed Rune magic equivelents to the Spirit Magic summon spells.

As such the it would be nice if the Summoning Rules (or some form of them) were to make it into Deluxe RQ so that the Magic system would be 'complete' (as there are no summoning rules in the core or companion).

The Command, Control, and Dominate spells would go nicely with the summoning rules if they were to make it into Deluxe RQ.

 

[Rurik]

Also, If the rule from the Players update where spell resistence is now an opposed roll is included, there should be an answer to the issue of using enchanted items to cast spells.

The question was posed by a user a while back what do you use for a casting skill when using an enchanted item? Spellcharge enchantments do not require the caster to know the spell and are automatically cast successfully. Does this mean they have a 100% skill? If so they are VERY powerful no that resist rolls are opposed.

The only other solution I can see would be to modify the way a spellcharge enchantment works to have a skill rating to be used for the opposed roll - perhaps the enchanters enchant skill or skill with the spell enchanted to the item (or the lower of the two).

As they stand right now Spellcharge enchantments are very powerful (automatically cast the enchanted spell for 1 MP no matter what the magnitude of the enchanted item is is pretty potent).

 

[TRose]

feel sorry for Mongoose. They were asked to spruce up a nerdy fantasy roleplaying game played by 15 year olds and find themselves moaned at by blokes in beards in their late 30s discussing seriously a place that doesnt exist.[/quote]

Late 30's? I remember my late 30's vaguely as it was a long time ago.
But I think alot of us want a system where a Priest can have a decent amount of Divine magic.

 

[AKAramis]

Worse still are us Late-30's schoolteacher types....

 

[atgxtg]

I feel sorry for Mongoose. They were asked to spruce up a nerdy fantasy roleplaying game played by 15 year olds and find themselves moaned at by blokes in beards in their late 30s discussing seriously a place that doesnt exist.

Why? For starters Mongoose wan't asked to spruce up anything. They choose to write and publish a new edition of RuneQuest, and paid royalties to do so. Secondly, it isn't like they are doing someone a favor, but are trying to make money selling an RPG line. It they want to do so successfully, then it makes sense to pay attention to what the fans have to say.

It's not like someone twisted any arms to force Mongoose into doing something that they didn't want to.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Writing a new Runequest was propably like writing a new Traveller will be. There's a lot of people that would not have been happy unless the new game was a word-for-word reprint of RQ3 (or 2, depending on the person in question)

 

[Grrrr]

Writing a new Runequest was propably like writing a new Traveller will be. There's a lot of people that would not have been happy unless the new game was a word-for-word reprint of RQ3 (or 2, depending on the person in question)

Some yes, but I think that there are more of us who'd prefer that the only changes made actually:

a) made play quicker
b) made play more fun
c) removed ambiguity
d) removed typos
e) gave more value for money

Thus far the only rules I can think of that are an improvement from RQII/III to MRQ are:

Rationalisation of number of weapon skills
Option for more experienced starting PCs
Criticals as 1/10 not 1/5 and 1/20


Grrrr

 

[Rurik]

Writing a new Runequest was propably like writing a new Traveller will be. There's a lot of people that would not have been happy unless the new game was a word-for-word reprint of RQ3 (or 2, depending on the person in question)

Some yes, but I think that there are more of us who'd prefer that the only changes made actually:

a) made play quicker
b) made play more fun
c) removed ambiguity
d) removed typos
e) gave more value for money

Thus far the only rules I can think of that are an improvement from RQII/III to MRQ are:

Rationalisation of number of weapon skills
Option for more experienced starting PCs
Criticals as 1/10 not 1/5 and 1/20


Grrrr

Sorcery is definately better than RQ3.

I would say Character Creation is much faster than earlier RQ's, and has no flaws*

RQ3 was very expensive when it came out, $40 for Deluxe RQ where you got 5 flimsy books and a map, that while nice enough, I never knew anyone who used it. I'm not saying MRQ is cheap, because it isn't, but when Deluxe RQ comes out $40 is going to get you a Hardcover 350-ish page comprehensive book (20+ years after RQ3). Of course I paid $85 over three books :roll: , but hey, the value is coming.

*OK, unless you roll up a runecaster. My first spellcaster took forever trying to figure out what Runes to take because of there is no easy way to tell what runes give what spells without flipping through all the spells.

 

[Ari]

Thus far the only rules I can think of that are an improvement from RQII/III to MRQ are:

Rationalisation of number of weapon skills
Option for more experienced starting PCs
Criticals as 1/10 not 1/5 and 1/20

Grrrr

I agree with the above but also find alot of other stuff that I rather like in the MRQ version, such as:
- getting rid of total HP,
- I find the new the character generation system quicker and simpler,
- the books are "pretty", which is more something the kids like,
- despite the stutter at the start, I like the opposed rolls system,
- Mongoose is producing new stuff at a good rate,
- but most importantly the kids love it.

cheers, Ari

 

[AKAramis]

So far, I've only done CG and a few test fights.

I don't like the lack of central HP. It's easy enough to add back in.

I can understand the choice of methodology for the hit locations, but I prefer RQ3's, especially since it works better "outside the hominid range".

I do much prefer MRQ character generation. Very nice.

I prefer avalon hill's layout and editing quality.

The variety of magical systems looks nice... the clarity of the three in RQ3 was nice, and the diversity in MRQ is also nice.

RQ3 experience was quite nifty and is easily added back.

MRQ opposed resolution is nice, except for the combat tables (due to poor editing), and to be honest, is a Pendragon/HeroQuest/HeroWars approach... in short, Greg Stafford using his best innovation again.

I like that the core isn't tied to Glorantha. I like reading about Glorantha, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy playing there. I've tried to run HW, but my players couldn't wrap their heads around the setting.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Writing a new Runequest was propably like writing a new Traveller will be. There's a lot of people that would not have been happy unless the new game was a word-for-word reprint of RQ3 (or 2, depending on the person in question)

I'd only be happy with a new Traveller that was a word-for word reprint of RQ2 or 3...

 

[weasel_fierce]

I'd only be happy with a new Traveller that was a word-for word reprint of RQ2 or 3...

That might cause some sort of reality-paradox

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I feel sorry for Mongoose. They were asked to spruce up a nerdy fantasy roleplaying game played by 15 year olds and find themselves moaned at by blokes in beards in their late 30s discussing seriously a place that doesnt exist.

I seriously doubt that there were many 15 year olds playing RQ at the start of 2006. Especially if you exclude those in games run by blokes in beards in their late 30s (or older)

 

[RosenMcStern]

I think the final word about MRQ can be said only after the GM Guide is out. Deluxe RQ will be only a re-editing of the three books, so very few differences in contents. If the GM Guide contains alternate rules for all that stuff that worked well in RQ3 but was judged too complex for MRQ (weapon range, hit locations for big monsters, general HP for poison, summoning, etc.) then the system is well worth the money we put in it. If not, then you will end up using more houserules than published rules, and this is not a good thing.

(Weapon Length will be in for sure, at least this is what the author said. The other stuff, we'll see).

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Of course, MRQ is also in print. :mrgreen:

 

[AKAramis]

I feel sorry for Mongoose. They were asked to spruce up a nerdy fantasy roleplaying game played by 15 year olds and find themselves moaned at by blokes in beards in their late 30s discussing seriously a place that doesnt exist.

I seriously doubt that there were many 15 year olds playing RQ at the start of 2006. Especially if you exclude those in games run by blokes in beards in their late 30s (or older)

Perhaps not, but a few kids have been playing Hero Wars... I saw a few running it at one of the local High Schools... a year after one of them saw me reading Anaxial's Roster at lunch time.

And I've seen a few copies of AD&D 1st ed in high-school halls.

 

[Grrrr]

Of course, MRQ is also in print. :mrgreen:

So is RQIII.

Unfortunately that very fact uinderlines my point about MRQs poor value as it is only availible (renamed as BRP) as three (relatively expensive) books.

However it is in print.


Grrrr


Edit: Whoops that should be undermines not underlines damn you opposite meanings of similar (to type) words

 

[Grrrr]

Oh andd I've thought of another plus for MRQ. The more granular damage bonus chart. (Although it does fall apart at the extremes for human range it is a big improvement on the old RQII/III chart).

Am I the only person who rationalises damage codes for bites and so
i.e. Bite d8+d4 would become Bite 2d6




Grrrr