Glorantha: The New Age?

[GianniVacca]

Well said, and all the pissy criticism by playtesters and 'wannabees' that have never actually produced any serious work of their own (there is but a handful out of this lot that would qualify as serious producers of material) could be toned down in favor of getting a little self respect and possibly a life. Its so much easier to tear things down than build them up.

Some nerve! Forums are meant for us unproductive no-life fans to whinge about what hard-working game designers produce! :x

 

[zozotroll]

CAnt say as I have ever produced any published game matereal. But over the years I have grown a fair number of cattle. So am I the only one that can complain about a poorly cooked peice of meat?

 

[Christopher Graves]

Would you like for me to explain to you which informal fallacy of logic you just used or are you just kidding.

 

[kintire]

Well said, and all the pissy criticism by playtesters and 'wannabees' that have never actually produced any serious work of their own (there is but a handful out of this lot that would qualify as serious producers of material) could be toned down in favor of getting a little self respect and possibly a life. Its so much easier to tear things down than build them up.

I would just like to point out that this line, while popular with creative minds in a variety of fields, is not how life works. The people who can give dispassionate assessments of a piece of work are not those who created and are attached to it, but those who actually try to use it. Nothing screams "trainwreck imminent!" louder than someone calling playtesters "pissy" for criticising the game...

 

[Christopher Graves]

Yes, but I am talking about the long ongoing feud that stems from the advent of MRQ and the loss by Chaosium of the Runequest franchise. It is some misguided resentment that should be defunct that is clearly the motivation behind much bitter commentary. Playtesters that provide criticism to a company while a product is in development is another thing. It is even OK when a company with its head up its arse ignores a lot of advice and has to have problems shook out after publication as was indeed the case with MRQ. (That's what they get for allowing a D20 man try to make our RQ more palatable to that crowd) But a lot of the quite rude criticism that still persists is overly cynical and often 'too cleaver by half'. For my part I am sick of this pollution and I have bouts of needing to send a little self righteousness back their way. I for one, am glad that RQ is getting published at all, much less relatively competently published. I find that some, and many of these few are those I refer to as having no achievement in the field to speak of, and finding criticism as an easy form of self gratification, and who seem to take for granted how much easier it is to tear down than to build up a thing. At least, beyond more gruesome pathologies, that is the only explanation I can find for such behavior. Many of these folks, it seems would prefer that the game was driven into a ditch rather than played. They simply need to find some other outlet or to find something to do with themselves.

When people who have long histories in gaming whether in publication or having produced a lot of material, heck any material, in fanzines, choose to provide some criticism my ears prick up. Generally, these people are very balanced in what they say and are able to give reasons for their opinions that are based on long experience. They are not trying to sound terribly clever and they are not trying to tear anything down but rather to question and improve. That's a big difference. The muck just gets in the way. I spoke out in this thread that might have been interesting was taken over by these little angry people with their rakes. Tisk, tisk ...

 

[kintire]

As a lover of irony I enjoyed your reply. You are absolutely right of course: people get hung up over ancient feuds between or within systems and the cheap slurs become almost a habit. I saw a typical example just recently:

That's what they get for allowing a D20 man try to make our RQ more palatable to that crowd

However, its always worth checking the criticism first. I don't think a publishing record is required for a good critiqu.

 

[Christopher Graves]

Life actually does work that way. Those qualified to 'do' actually can dissect their work that's how they get any good at it. I'm not saying this includes every author every time. Tish, you imply an abstraction with yet another. Of course, sometimes this is a problem. But life doesn't work any one way. Most who create are able to take apart unless they are mere school girls to wrapped up in themselves and that's the difference between those who have actually finished and maybe even failed a few times and those who stand on the sidelines and yell. Not always, but more often than not it is the person with the hard won experience that will have something worth saying. Its easy to pick them out. They have something usually balanced to say.

The difference I look for and was trying to model was the ability to look at something in a manner that could bring a little light to the subject at hand instead of the vogue of search and destroy. The latter is so easy. I have found that those who criticize in a balanced fashion based on reasonable expectations arising out of long experience are those worth listening to. When the unwashed manage this, I'm willing to listen.

Oh and you are so right, I made a slur. The difference is I wasn't trying to bring the ashes raining down around me. Having called out those who complain about a certain class of production problems I admitted that this type of criticism was well founded. My problem remained with the intent and the tone of some individuals.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I too like the irony that someone who's only input to this thread has been to pass judgement on the opinion of others complaining that all some people do is pass judgement and complain!

AFAIC anyone who is spending money on a product is certainly entitled to hold and voice an opinion on it, whether or not they produce similar or related products for public consumption. We are, after all, quite literally paying for Mongoose's mistakes (which is why I will be holding out for MRQ2.5 in the non-expensive cover. I know they say now that there won't be one, but when the initial rule books were published they said there wouldn't be a sensibly sized core rule book...)

 

[kintire]

Life actually does work that way. Those qualified to 'do' actually can dissect their work that's how they get any good at it.

Those that ARE good at it maybe: but the fact remains that those people best placed to assess how well something works are those who are working with it, and if a playtester comes back and says there's a problem, looking into their publishing history is not the right response.

I know that creators tend to resent critics, but they do actually do a useful job.

Oh and you are so right, I made a slur. The difference is I wasn't trying to bring the ashes raining down around me. Having called out those who complain about a certain class of production problems I admitted that this type of criticism was well founded. My problem remained with the intent and the tone of some individuals.

I think your problem is well founded, although I'm not convinced by your solution. But its an unfortunate fact that if you are complaining about other people's intent and tone you shouldd be very careful about your own, or hilarity may ensue!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Life actually does work that way. Those qualified to 'do' actually can dissect their work that's how they get any good at it.

This would imply that having produced a Conan RPG rulebook that was so full of errors that they had to produce the Atlantean Edition to correct them that Mongoose would have learned from their mistakes and not rush out any more RPG rulebooks before they had been properly playtested and editied wouldn't it? Unfortunately I have a Runequest Rulebook that shows that this was not the case.

As a consumer, I don't need to have produced a Roleplaying game to know that a single comprehensive rulebook is better than several slim hardback volumes. Mongoose finally realised this when they released RQ deluxe, rather too late for those of us "early adopters" who had already (over)paid once for this material

Not always, but more often than not it is the person with the hard won experience that will have something worth saying.

Quite. But to criticise a RPG you don't need to have produced a RPG. You can quite easily buy, read and play any number of games without having to show your secret "Games Publishers" membership card. (Just as one can offer a valid opinion on a film without being a movie director, a play without being an actor or a piece of music without being a composer. - Or as someone suggested earlier - on a piece of steak without being a cattle farmer or a butcher...)

Its easy to pick them out. They have something usually balanced to say.

What has 'balanced' got to do with anything? A review should be reasonably "neutral" in tone, since both excessive raving or excessive ranting only reveal things about the reviewer not the product, but if the purpose of a post here is to criticise or to praise then that's what it should do, not try and be all "politically correct" in the name of balance. If I want to say I thought "Dara Happa Stirs" was excellent, the sort of product I'd like to see more of, do I have to also find something to complain about to make my post balanced? If I want to say the editing, layout, and decison to split it into two volumes was disasterous for Cults of Glorantha, do I *have* to say that I'm glad to see some of these cults appear for the first time for my points to be taken seriously?

Oh and you are so right, I made a slur. The difference is I wasn't trying to bring the ashes raining down around me. Having called out those who complain about a certain class of production problems I admitted that this type of criticism was well founded. My problem remained with the intent and the tone of some individuals.

The really clever thing though, is that you posted your slur into this thread where no criticism had been made, causing the diversion and muckraking that you complain about to occur.

I dislike the raving fanboy "We're so pathetically grateful that someone is publishing our favourite game that we will not only happily overlook any flaw, but deride anyone who dares to point it out" attitude that you seem to be displaying (and it's not unique to Mongoose).

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

It's a skewed version of events...

Huh, yeah. strange that no one has mentioned it was Avalon Hill who owned 'Runequest'. It was they that let the ownership slip out from under them.

 

[Christopher Graves]

Well, I'm not getting drawn in any further. I've had my say, again. Those who agree with me may take some satisfaction. Those who don't are welcome to have their say. And those who have no other goal but to seem darling to themselves will never be stopped. So, I'm the fool anyway. At least I know it.

 

[TrippyHippy]

We are, after all, quite literally paying for Mongoose's mistakes

No, we are not. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

We are, after all, quite literally paying for Mongoose's mistakes

I can sympathise with this to a certain extent. Theres a bunch of people who have been buying up RQ since well before Mongoose was born. (Long before the current writers were born too, I'll bet!). Mongoose (or any company), would have to accept the fact that these people have been extremely loyal to the brand, and have, in some ways, made it what it is. Internet interest and contribution more or less, kept RQ alive, ripe for another edition. After such a long wait, expectations were bound to be high.

I think Mongoose has done it the right way, involved people, the very people who had put so much effort in during the lean years, and I think Mongoose, therefore, had a certain amount of kudos for this.

I think people have been pretty accepting of the first Mongoose attempt at a new edition of RQ. It appeared, with little to no art, had lots of holes and typoes, yet, Runequesters will still, stick with Mongoose and the new edition. Again, they will buy another version of Cults of Prax, another version of Pavis, another version of Trollpak, etc., etc.. This doesnt come cheap.

Mongoose's first attempt was ok. It wasnt great, it was ok, there were some good additions to the system. This next version has to be a lot better though.

I think its about good will and patience. Its not inexhaustable though.

 

[Antalon]

It seems to me that Mongoose has got the message re its handling / development of the RQ rules - hence its recruitment and trust in the current developers (Loz and Pete). That's good. It can't hide the fact that they basically goofed with the basic and the advanced rules (e.g. role of cults, the cults of Glorantha etc) - hopefully these things will be fixed in the near future too.

However, what Mongoose has done is make Glorantha accessable, and it has done this well (and even better if Pavis Rises lives up to expectations). I've loved RQ for years, but found Glorantha daunting. The Blood of Orlanth scenario changes that, the first Glorantha 2nd age campaign book made the roleplaying / adventure gaming opportunities so much more...obvious (albeit a systemless resource). At last, I did not need some higher degree in Gloranthan lore to use the setting for what it was meant for: a campaign setting for fantasy roleplaying. My Glorantha will differ - but I feel safer knowing where I'm starting from.

So - well done Mongoose on making me able to use Glorantha - and it sounds like this will get easier with the new campaign guide that actually enables out of the box Glorantha characters.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Theres a bunch of people who have been buying up RQ since well before Mongoose was born. (Long before the current writers were born too, I'll bet!).

Well, you'd lose that bet then. I am considerably older than RQ, and Loz is even older than me. You can buy us both a commiseration beer at the next convention we're all at. :wink:

 

[Simulacrum]

Which surely leads on to an OT point - how are we doing at getting new players in to the hobby - and into RQ - who have not been playing for 30 years? Without that the market eventually dies - a dimishing share of a diminishing consumer base. I was very upset many moons ago when GW took White Dwarf and turned it into a house mag for children (as far as we were concerned) who played Warhammer. But hey, who is laughing now?

 

[The Greek]

As for new players there are some games out there which work pretty well. Dragon Warriors and Dr Who, for example, are pretty simple and easyish to find. (Not that I think RQ II or Traveller are complicated, mind).

I try to get a new player involved every year or so which is not a huge problem. The only way to get new players, really, is to introduce them to games yourself...

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Theres a bunch of people who have been buying up RQ since well before Mongoose was born. (Long before the current writers were born too, I'll bet!).

Well, you'd lose that bet then. I am considerably older than RQ, and Loz is even older than me. You can buy us both a commiseration beer at the next convention we're all at. :wink:

I was giving you both the benefit of the doubt!

Seriously, though, I think MRQ did introduce some nice concepts, which went quite a way towards compensating for the production issues, (not the fault of the writers). I didnt mind at all, that it went slightly towards the 'D&D playability' spectrum, Ive been playing RQ for quite a while, and I baulk at introducing my own stuff to Glorantha. MRQ went some way towards getting Glorantha accessible again, it was groaning under the weight of thousands of esoteric articles about god-knows-what.

Still, MRQ did have some issues of production and organisation. And Im actually none too keen about having to rebuy yet again, but the promise of the perfect edition draws me on, (so far, elusive), and Im slightly hacked off at a new edition so soon, but all may be forgiven if its great. Chaosium did have some production issues too, so this isnt confined to Mongoose. (Im thinking of trolls, trolls, and yet more trolls here).

 

[zozotroll]

You can never have to much on Trolls.

RQ has never been the tightest system. Lots of ways to make it fit your idea of what is up.

And because of the way things have always fit earlier editions, I still bring out Apple lane to run newbies through.

I just hope this edition is mostly a step forward with out creating a new set of problems, like physical runes.